Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES ECONOMIC, TECHNICAL, AND RENEWABLE COMPARISONS Gary C. Young, PhD...

Author: Gary C Young

361 downloads 1174 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES ECONOMIC, TECHNICAL, AND RENEWABLE COMPARISONS

Gary C. Young, PhD., P.E.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TO ENERGY CONVERSION PROCESSES ECONOMIC, TECHNICAL, AND RENEWABLE COMPARISONS

Gary C. Young, PhD., P.E.

Copyright 2010 by John Wiley &Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http: //www. wiley.com/go/permission. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and speciﬁcally disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or ﬁtness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of proﬁt or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com. Library of Congress Catalogiitg-in-Publicatton Data: Young, Gary C., 1943Municipal solid waste to energy conversion processes : economic, technical, and renewable comparisons / Gary C. Young. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-470-53967-5 (cloth) 1. Refuse as fuel. 2. Waste products as fuel. 3. Refuse and refuse disposal. 4. Incineration. 5. Resource recovery facilities. I. Title. TD796.2.Y68 2010 662’.87–dc22 2009043672 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

Preface

ix

Professional Biography

xi

1

Introduction to Gasiﬁcation / Pyrolysis and Combustion Technology(s) Historical Background and Perspective Introduction What is Pyrolysis? What is Pyrolysis/Gasiﬁcation? What is Conventional Gasiﬁcation? What is Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation? What is Mass Burn (Incineration)? Which Thermal Process Technology is the Most Efﬁcient and Economical? Performance/Thermal Efﬁciency of Technologies What is the Economic Comparison Between the Thermal Processes? References

2

3

1 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 10 10 15

How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage to Electricity and a Case Study?

16

Basis Economic Cases Logical Approach for Future Progress References

19 19 20 21

How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage to Liquid Fuels and Case Studies?

23

MSW To Syngas to Liquid Fuels Via Chemistry (Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis) and a Case Study Basis Economic Case Logical Approach for Future Progress MSW to Syngas to Liquid Fuel via Biochemistry and a Case Study

23 26 27 28 29 v

vi

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CONTENTS

Basis and Economics References

31 33

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Electricity, Case Study with Economy of Scale

35

Conclusions and Recommendations (Opinions) References

39 40

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power Ethanol Plants and a Case Study

41

Basis Economic Cases Logical Approach for Future Progress References

44 45 46 47

From Curbside to Landﬁll: Cash Flows as a Revenue Source for Waste Solids-to-Energy Management

49

References

123

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power, Case Study with Economics of a 94 ton/day Facility

124

More Recent Events About the Project References

126 128

Plant Operations: Eco-Valley Plant in Utashinai, Japan: An Independent Case Study

129

References

133

Municipal Solid Waste and Properties

135

What is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and How Much is Generated in the United States? MSW Properties References

135 137 153

MSW Processes to Energy with High-Value Products and Specialty By-Products

155

Production of Ammonia (NH3) from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route Production of Gas to Liquids from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route Production of Methanol (CH3OH) from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route Production of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route

157 158 164 167

CONTENTS

11

vii

Production of Hydrogen (H2) from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route(S) Gasiﬁer Air Separation Unit (ASU) Hot Gas Cleanup System Sulfuric Acid Plant CO2-Rich Separated Gas Stream/Conventional Turbine Expander Production of Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) from Syngas via Chemical Synthesis Route Production of Ethanol and Methanol from Syngas using Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis Process Production of Ethanol from Syngas via a Bio-Chemical Synthesis Route Production of Ethanol via a Combination of Chemical and Bio-Chemical Synthesis Routes Using Biomass (Cellulosic Material) Oxosynthesis (Hydroformylation): Syngas and Oleﬁnic Hydrocarbons and Chemical Synthesis Slag or Vitriﬁed Slag or Ash from Gasiﬁcation Reactor and Specialty By-Product Options Vitriﬁed Slag, Slag, and Ashes: Research and Development (R&D), Marketing, and Sales Process for Resolving Problems with Ashes Production of Road Material from Slag and Vitriﬁed Slag Production and Uses of Rock Wool, Stone Wool, and Mineral Wool Production of Aggregate Production of Flame-Resistant Foam Destruction of Asbestos Wastes via Vitriﬁcation Discussion of Potential Markets for the Vitriﬁed Slag References

192 192 196 197 200 200 201 202 204

MSW Gasiﬁers and Process Equipment

208

Conventional Gasiﬁers/Gasiﬁcation Reactors ChevronTexaco Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer E-Gas Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer Shell Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer Lurgi Dry-Ash Gasiﬁer and British Gas/Lurgi Gasiﬁer Prenﬂo Entrained Bed Gasiﬁer Noell Entrained Flow Gasiﬁer High-Temperature Winkler Gasiﬁer KRW Fluidized Bed Gasiﬁer Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology Alter Nrg Plasma Gasiﬁer (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation) System

210 212 213 214 215 217 218 218 219 221

169 172 172 173 173 173 175 175 178

181 186 188

222

CONTENTS

viii

12

13

EUROPLASMA, Plasma Arc System Phoenix Solutions Plasma Arc Torches, Phoenix Solutions Company (PSC) PyroGenesis Plasma-Based Waste to Energy Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC (InEnTec) Other Gasiﬁcation Technology Thermoselect Process by Interstate Waste Technologies Primenergy’s Gasiﬁcation System at Moderate Temperatures Nexterra’s Gasiﬁcation System at Moderate Temperatures Other Process Equipments Candle Filter Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Units Mercury Removal Systems Main Sulfur Removal Technologies Combustion Turbine for Syngas and Gas Engine for Syngas Siemens-Westinghouse Syngas Combustion Turbine for Syngas General Electric (GE) Combustion Turbine for Syngas GE Gas Engine for Syngas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter for Waste Solids (RayMas Meter) References

226 227 227 230 230 231 234 234 234 235 236 236 237 237 238 240 241 251

Other Renewable Energy Sources

255

Wind Energy: Introduction Big Wind Systems to Energy Economic Example and Cases Discussion of Economics For the Large Wind Farm Cases Economy of Scale Associated With Wind Farms Small Wind Systems to Energy Discussion of Economics for the Small Wind Farm Cases Hydroelectric Energy: Introduction Hydroelectric Mill Dam: Nashua, Iowa Discussion of the Nashua Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Hydroelectric Mill Dam: Delhi, Iowa Discussion of the Delhi Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Hydroelectric Mill Dam: Fort Dodge, Iowa Discussion of the Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Daily Flow and Production Methodology, Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility References

255 258 259 266 270 272 279 280 283 285 293 294 298 305

Waste Energy to Recycled Energy

362

Introduction References

362 378

Index

223

316 360

379

PREFACE

In the many years of practicing engineering as a profession from research and development to commercial plant operations, I observed over time that many good ideas never came to fruition. The good ideas were typically blocked by those who did not understand the technology behind the good idea and/or by those ideas supported by others with vested interests or agendas. Thus, the quotation presented here keeps the true professional aware of potential roadblocks in order to be successful. “Show me an agenda and it likely will lead you astray. Give me technology and it will lead you to prosperity.”

In all my professional work experiences from research and development, process development and design, construction, start-up and operation of commercial plant operations, and waste management always played a role in the ﬁnal outcome of a plant’s commercial proﬁtability. My exposure, interest, and professional knowledge in gasiﬁcation of hydrocarbons began in the late 1960s while working in the energy industry. When my exposure to plasma gasiﬁcation technology began in the early 2000s from listening to a seminar by Dr. Circeo, the practical process beneﬁts of plasma gasiﬁcation technology for the management of wastes became apparent and caught my professional interest. After several years of further scientiﬁc inquiry into plasma technology, it became obvious that a proven technology was available to manage a wide variety of solid wastes, such as municipal solid waste (MSW), to produce energy and valuable recyclable by-products with essentially no wastes. Further economic assessment of the plasma gasiﬁcation process on MSW indicated a proven process of commercial viability. Thus, this book was undertaken to inform the public, teachers, professors, public ofﬁcials, city, state, federal governments, businessmen, and businesswomen on how the proven plasma gasiﬁcation technology can be used to manage MSW and generate energy and revenues for local communities in an environmentally safe manner with essentially no wastes. Furthermore, currently generated MSW can be processed with this proven plasma gasiﬁcation technology to eliminate air and water pollution from landﬁlls. It is my professional hope that this proven and economic plasma gasiﬁcation technology for the management of MSW will be understood and embraced by the reader so as to lead to prosperity.

ix

PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Gary C. Young, Ph.D., P.E., is a knowledgeable professional in research, development, economic assessment, and commercialization of industrial processes. Dr. Young has over 40þ years of industrial experience in processes involving energy, food, agricultural, chemical, and pharmaceutical businesses. He has done consulting in areas of research and development, troubleshooting plant operations and process bottlenecks, maintenance, engineering, and environmental challenges. Dr. Young has successfully commercialized new processes from the laboratory to process development, engineering, procurement, construction, training, and start-up with ﬁnal management of the production operation. Furthermore, a new agricultural herbicide process was successfully completed from the laboratory to full-scale commercialization without the need for a pilot plant. Dr. Young is the inventor of many patents. He has work experiences with CONOCO, Stauffer Chemical Company, Beatrice Foods Company, Monsanto Company, and Carus Chemical Company. Current “technical and commercial economic” interests are with the conversion of “waste solids to energy” such as electricity and fuels. In addition, Dr. Young recently developed a novel thermal process for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a gaseous stream into energy and fuels. Dr. Young holds B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Nebraska. He is a licensed professional engineer in the states of California, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Dr. Young is the founder and owner of Bio-Thermal-Energy, Inc. (B-T-E, Inc.).

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Gasiﬁcation/Pyrolysis and Combustion Technology(s)

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVE Archeological studies demonstrate that Trash-Garbage-Waste was generated by Native Americans in Colorado about 6,500 BC in North America. Based upon archeological assessment of the waste site, the Native Americans in that ancient clan generated 5.3 pounds of waste per day as compared to 2.5 pounds per day for middle-class Americans today. The ﬁrst municipal dump in the Western world is credited to the Athenians of Greece about 500 BC. In Jerusalem/Palestine, the New Testament of The Bible mentions Sheol was likely a dump outside the city of Jerusalem and became synonymous with “Hell.” In 1388, the English parliament barred waste disposal in public waterways and ditches. Recycling was mentioned in 1690 when Rittenhouse Mill, Philadelphia, made paper from recycled ﬁbers of waste paper and rags. In Nottingham, England about 1874, a new technology known as “the Destructor” was used to manage garbage; it involved systematic burning, i.e., incineration. The ﬁrst garbage incinerator was built in the United States on Governor’s Island, New York about 1885. It was reported in 1889 around Washington, D.C., that there was lack of places for refuse. Also, the ﬁrst recycling/sorting of rubbish in the United States occurred in New York around 1898.1 Landﬁlls became popular in the 1920s as a means of reclaiming swampland while disposing of trash. Then in 1965, the Federal government of the United States enacted the ﬁrst Federal solid waste (SW) management laws. In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was created for stressing recycling and hazardous waste management, which likely was instigated by the discovery of Love Canal.1 This proves that since the creation of mankind, humans have generated waste. But waste disposal was not a problem when we had a nomadic existence; mankind simply moved away and left their waste behind. In addition, populations concentrating in urban areas necessitated better methods for management of waste. With the initiation of the industrial revolution, waste management became a critical issue. The

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

1

2

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

population increase and migration of people to industrial towns and cities from rural areas resulted in a consequent increase in the domestic and industrial waste (IW), posing threat to human health and environmental issues of water quality, air pollution, and land toxicity issues. As the American population grew and people left the farms for life in the city, the amount of waste increased. But the method of getting rid of the waste needed to improve. We continue to dump it. Today, about 55% of our garbage is hauled off and buried in sanitary landﬁlls. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is garbage that comes from homes, businesses, and schools. Today, this garbage is disposed of in “municipal solid waste landﬁlls” so the garbage does not harm the public health, or land, water, and air environment. MSW landﬁlls are not dumps for the new landﬁlls are required to have liners, leachate collection systems, gas collection equipment, groundwater monitoring, and environmental reporting requirements so as to protect the health and welfare of the community. Our population is still growing and we are producing more garbage, even with the recycling efforts in full operation. We have come to the “place in time” where the momentum of TECHNOLOGY can help “protect human health and welfare,” and thus the environment, by creating an infrastructure design, creation and building of sustainable MSW processes that can turn our WASTE PROBLEM into useful GREEN ENERGY for the betterment of ALL.

INTRODUCTION The management/treatment of SWs by thermal pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation technology is increasingly viewed as the best suitable and economically viable approach for the management of wastes such as: residential waste (RW), commercial waste (CW), IW, and MSW, which can be a mixture of these wastes. Various types of Thermal Processes using pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation technology will be discussed and also why plasma arc gasiﬁcation process was selected as most attractive for commercial viability.2–4 The various types of thermal processes based upon pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation technology are pyrolysis, pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation, conventional gasiﬁcation, and plasma arc gasiﬁcation. One additional thermal process was also considered, which is based upon combustion technology and is known as mass burn (incineration). The key product from these thermal gasiﬁcation technologies is the conversion of MSW into synthesis gas (syngas), which is predominantly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), which can be converted into energy (steam and/or electricity), other gases, fuels, and/or chemicals, and will be discussed in detail throughout this book. One approach or option for the use of the key product from the conversion of MSW into syngas by a thermal process is for generation of steam and/or electricity in a powerhouse. This approach or “Power Option” will be discussed later in Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 7. Another approach to the management of MSW is the “BioChemistry Option” (biochemical or biological technologies), which by necessity operates at conditions appropriate for living organisms/microbes. Consequently, the reaction rates are lower

WHAT IS PYROLYSIS?

3

and these technologies require feedstock that is biodegradable. One, therefore, could conclude that these biochemical technologies have limitations for applicability for treating MSW compared to the thermal processes. Thermal processes are brute force chemical reaction approach to the management of MSW feedstock in comparison to the ﬁnesse of biochemical/biological reactions and consequent limitations of feedstock acceptance. However, the real niche for biochemical processes is to take the syngas (predominantly, CO and H2), produced by a thermal process, and have the biochemical process (bacteria/microbes) convert the syngas into products such as fuels and chemicals, for example, ethanol, methanol, etc.5,6 This approach or “BioChemistry Option” will be covered in Chapter 3 with a case study. Another approach could be labeled the “Chemistry Option,” which converts syngas into fuels and chemicals by catalytic chemistry. A catalyst that is used typically is called Fischer–Tropsch catalyst. Thus, a thermal process can be used to produce syngas from MSW and then convert the syngas into chemicals by Fischer–Tropsch chemistry. This “Chemistry Option” is also covered in Chapter 3 with a case study. Lastly, one could consider landﬁll gas (LFG) as an approach, which involves the use of microorganisms to produce LFG in situ within the landﬁll. LFG is predominantly methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, i.e., approximately 50% CH4 and CO2. LFG is extracted from landﬁlls with a system typically comprising gas collecting from wells at the landﬁll to a central point, a gas processing plant, and a gas delivery pipeline to customer(s). LFG could be used in a boiler, dryer, kiln, greenhouse, or other applications. A basic drawback of LFG facility is that the microorganisms producing the LFG leave behind in situ landﬁll leachate as a byproduct of the microbiological process that can contaminate soil and groundwater. Even with the latest designs and use of liners in landﬁlls, no LFG system is fail-safe. Another negative factor is that an LFG facility just depletes the energy value of the landﬁll wastes by using up the most easily biodegraded organics in the MSW. Thus, a lesser energy value of MSW remaining in the landﬁll after an LFG facility will make it more difﬁcult economically to justify a future MSW management system to eliminate the landﬁll. In summary, an LFG process just skims off the energy leaving a degraded MSW mess behind to be dealt with later at a much greater cost to any future management system. Thus, this approach is not discussed further as a suitable approach both economically and environmentally.7,8 These basic approaches for the management of MSW are schematically shown in Fig. 1.1, whereby the options for the syngas are numerous. Key Thermal Processes will be discussed next with emphasis upon the conversion of MSW to syngas and an assessment of each process with a thorough technical and economic analysis.

WHAT IS PYROLYSIS? Pyrolysis can be deﬁned as the thermal decomposition of carbon-based materials in an oxygen-deﬁcient atmosphere using heat to produce syngas.9 No air or oxygen is present and no direct burning takes place. The process is endothermic.

4

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

FIGURE 1.1

MSW to Energy, Gases, Fuels, and Chemicals.

Typically, most organic compounds are thermally unstable, and at high temperatures, the chemical bonds of organic molecules break, producing smaller molecules such as hydrocarbon gases and hydrogen gas. At high temperatures, the gaseous mixture produced comprises predominantly the thermodynamically stable small molecules of CO and H2. This gaseous mixture of CO and H2 is called “syngas.” This latter stage of the thermal process is known as gasiﬁcation. A typical pyrolysis process is illustrated in Fig. 1.2. As illustrated in Fig. 1.2, feedstock as MSW is preprocessed to remove proﬁtable recyclables. Then the preprocessed material is fed into the pyrolysis reactor where an indirect source of heat elevates the contents to a temperature between 1,200 and 2,200 F to produce raw syngas overhead and a bottom ash, carbon char, and metals from the reactor. Some report the pyrolysis process to occur at a reactor temperature between 750 and 1,650 F.9 The pyrolysis process occurs in an oxygen-deﬁcient (starved) atmosphere. The syngas cleanup step is designed to remove carry-over particulate matter from the reactor, sulfur, chlorides/acid gases (such as hydrochloric acid), and trace metals such as mercury. Syngas is used in the power generation plant to produce energy, such as steam and electricity, for use in the process and export energy. The export energy is typically converted into electricity and supplied/sold to the grid. The bottoms from the reactor are ash, carbon char, and metals. The carbon char and metals have use as recyclables in industry. However, the ash from the pyrolysis process is usually disposed of in a landﬁll, which is one of the major environmental shortcomings of the pyrolysis process when used for MSW management.

WHAT IS PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION?

FIGURE 1.2

5

Process Schematic, MSW to Electricity via Pyrolysis.

WHAT IS PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION? Pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation is a variation of the pyrolysis process. Another reactor is added whereby any carbon char or pyrolysis liquids produced from the initial pyrolysis step are further gasiﬁed in a close-coupled reactor, which may use air, oxygen, and/or steam for these gasiﬁcation reactions. As shown in Fig. 1.3, a controlled amount of air/oxygen is fed into the pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation reactor whereby some of the char and pyrolysis liquids react, i.e., there is combustion with oxygen. The combustion reactions (exothermic reactions) are controlled so as to supply sufﬁcient heat for the pyrolysis reactions (endothermic reactions), yielding a temperature typically between 1,400 and 2,800 F. Sometimes the pyrolysis/gasiﬁer conditions are stated as 750–1,650 F for the pyrolysis zone and 1,400–2,800 F for the gasiﬁcation zone. In addition, steam is supplied to the reactor for the chemical reactions that yield CO and H2.9 Pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation reactor operates predominantly in an oxygen-starved environment, since the combustion reactions (exothermic reactions) quickly consume the oxygen producing heat sufﬁcient for the pyrolysis reactions (endothermic reactions), resulting in a raw syngas exiting the reactor. The raw syngas is cleaned up of carry-over particulate matter from the reactor, sulfur, chlorides/acid gases (such as hydrochloric acid), and trace metals such as mercury. Syngas is used in the power generation plant to produce energy, such as steam and electricity, for use in the process and export energy. The export energy is typically converted into electricity and supplied/sold to the grid.

6

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

FIGURE 1.3

Process Schematic, MSW to Electricity via Pyrolysis/Gasiﬁcation.

The bottoms from the reactor are typically ash, slag, and metals depending on the temperature of the pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation reactor. The metals ﬁnd use as recyclables in industry. However, the ash and/or slag is typically disposed of in a landﬁll, which is one of the major environmental shortcomings of the pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation process when used for MSW management. WHAT IS CONVENTIONAL GASIFICATION? Conventional gasiﬁcation is a thermal process, which converts carbonaceous materials, such as MSW, into syngas using a limited quantity of air or oxygen. The conventional gasiﬁcation conditions are sometimes between 1,450 and 3,000 F. Steam is injected into the conventional gasiﬁcation reactor to promote CO and H2 production. For simplicity, some basic chemical reactions in the gasiﬁcation process are: C þ O2 ! CO2

ð1:1Þ

C þ H2 O > CO þ H2

ð1:2Þ

C þ 2H2 > CH4

ð1:3Þ

C þ CO2 > 2CO

ð1:4Þ

CO þ H2 O > CO2 þ H2

ð1:5Þ

Cn Hm þ nH2 O > nCO þ ðn þ 1=2 mÞH2

ð1:6Þ

WHAT IS CONVENTIONAL GASIFICATION?

FIGURE 1.4

7

Process Schematic, MSW to Electricity via Conventional Gasiﬁcation.

Thus, CO, H2, and CH4 are the basic components of the gasiﬁcation process producing the gaseous mixture. Of these components, the gaseous mixture comprises predominantly of CO) and H2. Equation (1.1) shows the carbonaceous components of the MSW as carbon (C) that reacts with oxygen (O2) to produce limited combustion but with the necessary heat for the syngas reactions (Eqs. (1.2–1.5 and 1.6)). Figure 1.4 illustrates a typical conventional gasiﬁcation process. As shown, a controlled amount of air/oxygen is fed into the conventional gasiﬁcation reactor whereby some feedstock material reacts, i.e., there is combustion with oxygen. The combustion reactions (exothermic reactions) are controlled so as to supply sufﬁcient heat for the predominantly syngas reactions (endothermic reactions), yielding a temperature typically between 1,450 and 3,000 F. The raw syngas exits the reactor and is cleaned up of carry-over particulate matter from the reactor, sulfur, chlorides/ acid gases (such as hydrochloric acid), and trace metals such as mercury. Syngas is sent to the power generation plant to produce energy, such as steam and electricity, for use in the process and export energy. The export energy is converted to electricity and supplied/sold to the grid. The bottoms from the conventional gasiﬁcation reactor are ash and/or slag and metals depending upon the temperature of the conventional gasiﬁcation reactor. However, the ash and/or slag from the reactor bottoms is usually disposed off in a landﬁll which is one of the major environmental shortcomings when used for MSW management.

8

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

WHAT IS PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION? Plasma arc gasiﬁcation is a high-temperature pyrolysis process whereby the organics of waste solids (carbon-based materials) are converted into syngas and inorganic materials and minerals of the waste solids produce a rocklike glassy by-product called vitriﬁed slag. The syngas is predominantly CO and H2. The high temperature during the process is created by an electric arc in a torch whereby a gas is converted into a plasma. The process containing a reactor with a plasma torch processing organics of waste solids (carbon-based materials) is called plasma arc gasiﬁcation. The plasma arc gasiﬁcation reactor is typically operated between 7,200 and 12,600 F. A process schematic of a typical plasma arc gasiﬁcation process is shown in Fig. 1.5. In commercial practice, the plasma arc gasiﬁcation process, as shown in Fig. 1.5, is operated with an injection of a carbonaceous material like coal or coke into the plasma arc gasiﬁcation reactor. This material reacts quickly with oxygen to produce heat for the pyrolysis reactions in an oxygen-starved environment. Equation (1.1) shows the carbonaceous materials as C that reacts with the O2 to produce limited combustion but with the necessary heat for the syngas reactions (Eqs. (1.2–1.5 and 1.6)). In addition, steam is added to the plasma arc gasiﬁcation reactor to promote syngas reactions. The combustion reactions (exothermic reactions) supply heat with additional heat from the plasma arc torches for the pyrolysis reactions (endothermic reactions), yielding a temperature typically between 7,200 and 12,600 F. The inorganic minerals of the waste solids (MSW) produce a rocklike by-product. Since operating conditions are very high (7,200–12,600 F), these minerals are

FIGURE 1.5

Process Schematic, MSW to Electricity via Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation.

WHAT IS MASS BURN (INCINERATION)?

9

converted into a vitriﬁed slag typically comprising metals and silica glass. This vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA standards. Metals can be recovered from the slag and the slag can be used to produce other by-products such as rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, and landscaping blocks, to mention a few.5,10 The vitriﬁed slag, being environmentally acceptable as a recyclable by-product, is one of the more positive attributes of plasma arc gasiﬁcation process for the management of MSW. Another positive attribute of the plasma arc gasiﬁcation process is that developments in the design of plasma arc gasiﬁcation reactor have improved and lessened the need for pretreatment/preprocessing.2–4,10

WHAT IS MASS BURN (INCINERATION)? Mass burn (Incineration) is a combustion process that uses an excess of oxygen and/or air to burn the SWs. The mass burn process operates with an “excess of oxygen” present and is therefore a “combustion” process as illustrated in Fig. 1.6. It is “NOT” a pyrolysis process. Feedstock as MSW is preprocessed to remove saleable recyclables for the marketplace and remaining MSW may be shredded. MSW is fed into the ﬂuid bed boiler with operating temperatures between 1,000 and 2,200 F. Excess air/O2 is used for combustion of the combustibles in the MSW. High-pressure steam produced in the ﬂuid bed boiler is sent to the power plant for energy generation. Hot exhaust gases from the ﬂuid bed boiler are sent for gas cleanup and heat recovery sent to the power plant for generation of energy.

FIGURE 1.6 Process Schematic, MSW to Electricity via Mass Burn (Incineration).

10

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

The power plant produces electricity using steam turbines and saleable excess electricity to the grid. One of the biggest drawbacks or negative environmental aspects of the mass burn process is the production of ash from the grate of the ﬂuid bed boiler. This ash is typically sent to a landﬁll for disposal. WHICH THERMAL PROCESS TECHNOLOGY IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL? Five Thermal Processes have been discussed so far but which process should be selected based upon the highest thermal efﬁciency and the best economics? To answer this question, the thermal efﬁciency and economics of the ﬁve technologies will be determined and compared. Performance/Thermal Efﬁciency of Technologies For the thermal process technologies discussed, the typical range of process operation is presented in Table 1.1 for comparison.9 The thermal efﬁciency of each thermal process technology previously discussed was determined by URS Corporation, which reported the net energy production of electricity to the Grid (area electrical distribution system) per ton of MSW, as shown in Fig. 1.7 and Table 1.2.9,11 On reviewing the net energy production to the grid for various types of thermal process technologies, plasma arc gasiﬁcation produces about 816 kWh/ton MSW compared to only about 685 kWh/ton MSW for a conventional gasiﬁcation technology. Thus, plasma arc gasiﬁcation could be considered the most efﬁcient thermal gasiﬁcation process. What is the Economic Comparison Between the Thermal Processes? However, before concluding that plasma arc gasiﬁcation process is the best approach to management of MSW, a preliminary economic analysis is performed for each of the thermal processes discussed previously. Then, a process economy and a process efﬁciency comparison can be shown for all of the thermal processes discussed. TABLE 1.1

Thermal Process Technology(s)

Thermal Process Technology/Typical Range of Process Operation: Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Conventional gasiﬁcation Pyrolysis gasiﬁcation Pyrolysis Mass burn (incineration)

7,200–12,600 F 1,400–2,800 F 1,400–2,800 F 1,200–2,200 F 1,000–2,200 F

Note: Except for plasma arc gasiﬁcation, these processes have environmental issues for disposal of ash and slag.

WHICH THERMAL PROCESS TECHNOLOGY IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL?

FIGURE 1.7

11

Comparison of Various Types of Thermal Processes.

A preliminary economic analysis was completed on the ﬁve thermal processes. Parameters used in this economic evaluation are shown in Table 1.3 and were estimated from the available literature.2–6,10 Economic analysis with these parameters allows computation of the net revenue (before taxes) of each thermal process as shown in Fig. 1.8. Mass burn shows negative net annual revenue (before taxes) while pyrolysis, pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation, conventional gasiﬁcation, and plasma arc gasiﬁcation indicate positive net annual revenue (before taxes). Plasma arc gasiﬁcation process has the highest net annual revenue. In addition, it should be pointed out that plasma arc gasiﬁcation process produces vitriﬁed slag that is an environmentally acceptable byproduct with revenue as a road material at typically $15.00/ton. On reviewing process characteristics of the thermal processes discussed, mass burn, pyrolysis, pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation, and conventional gasiﬁcation all typically produced ash as a by-product, which is not environmentally friendly since it must be disposed of in TABLE 1.2

Thermal Process Technology and Net Energy to Grid

Type of Thermal Process Technology

Net Energy Production to Grid

Mass burn (incineration) Pyrolysis Pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation Conventional gasiﬁcation Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation

544 kWh/ton 571 kWh/ton 685 kWh/ton 685 kWh/ton 816 kWh/ton

Source: Ref. (4).

MSW MSW MSW MSW MSW

12 $86,936,900 500 571 $7,193,700

$35.00 2 ¢/kWh 6.50 ¢/kWh 0.21 Ash/Char

$35.00 2 ¢/kWh 6.50 ¢/kWh 0.2 Ash

Pyrolysis

$115,997,700 500 544 $8,216,600

Mass Burn (Incineration)

Parameters for the Economic Assessment of the Thermal Processes

Capital investment at 6%, 20 years Plant capacity (tons MSW/day) Energy production (kWh/ton MSW) Operation and maintenance, capital budget, cost of ash disposal ($40/ton)12 ($/year) Tipping fee ($/ton MSW) (revenue) Green tags (revenue) Production energy sales (revenue) By-product Residue (tons/ton MSW)

Parameter

TABLE 1.3

$35.00 2 ¢/kWh 6.50 ¢/kWh 0.2 Ash

$102,593,400 500 685 $7,711,100

Pyrolysis/ Gasiﬁcation

$35.00 2 ¢/kWh 6.50 ¢/kWh 0.2 Ash/Slag

$80,337,800 500 685 6,871,800

Conventional Gasiﬁcation

$35.00 2 ¢/kWh 6.50 ¢/kWh 0.2 Vitriﬁed slag

$101,583,800 500 816 $7,483,400

Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation

WHICH THERMAL PROCESS TECHNOLOGY IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL?

FIGURE 1.8

13

Comparison of Various Types of Thermal Processes.

a landﬁll or other depository isolated from the environment. The plasma arc gasiﬁcation process produces a “vitriﬁed slag” as by-product. The vitriﬁed slag is environmentally sound, since it is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA leach test standards. Therefore, it can be used to produce other by-products such as rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, and landscaping blocks, or recycled as a road aggregate material.2,4 Toxicity leaching tests were conducted on the vitriﬁed slag produced from MSW using a plasma arc gasiﬁcation reactor.4,10 Standard toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) tests were conducted on vitriﬁed sample materials from experiments. The results are shown in Table 1.4. TABLE 1.4

Toxicity Leaching Test Results on Vitriﬁed Slag

Heavy Metal

Permissible Concentration (mg/l)

Measured Concentration (mg/l)

5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0

<0.1 0.47 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Source: Ref. (4,10).

INTRODUCTION TO GASIFICATION/PYROLYSIS

14

From the analysis above, it was concluded that plasma arc gasiﬁcation process would be the most attractive process for handling solid wastes in general due to the following characteristics: . . . . . .

. .

thermal efﬁciency process variety of different solid wastes minimal pretreatment/presorting of solid wastes production of “syngas” for conversion into a variety of energy sources such as steam, electricity, and/or liquid fuels environmentally sound, since the solid by-product, vitriﬁed slag, can be used as a construction material environmentally sound, since the “syngas” can be used to produce various energy products and any discharged gaseous efﬂuents treated by currently acceptable environmental processes ability to minimize if not eliminate the need for a landﬁll can be used to process wastes in an existing landﬁll and eliminate the old landﬁll.

The plasma arc gasiﬁcation process can be described as a “technologically advanced and environmentally friendly method of disposing of waste, converting it into commercially usable by-products. This process is a drastic nonincineration thermal process that uses extremely high temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment to completely decompose input waste material into very simple molecules. The intense and versatile heat generation capabilities of plasma technology enable a plasma gasiﬁcation/vitriﬁcation facility to treat a large number of waste streams in a safe and reliable manner. The by-products of the process are a combustible gas and an inert slag. Plasma gasiﬁcation consistently exhibits much lower environmental levels for both air emissions and slag leachate toxicity than other thermal technologies.”13 Thus, the following Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are devoted to an estimate of the commercial economics and viability of plasma arc gasiﬁcation. Chapter 6 presents the economic facts about cash ﬂows from curbside pickup of garbage to landﬁll and the net cash revenues generated by the business segment of MSW management. Chapter 2

How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage to Electricity and a Case Study? Chapter 3 How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage to Liquid Fuels and Case Studies? Chapter 4 Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Electricity, Case Study With Economy of Scale Chapter 5 Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power Ethanol Plants and a Case Study Chapter 6 From Curbside to Landﬁll, Cash Flows as a Revenue Source for Waste Solids-to-Energy Management

REFERENCES

Chapter 7 Chapter 8

15

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power, Case Study With Economics of 94 ton/day Facility Plant Operations: Eco-Valley Plant in Utashinai, Japan; an Independent Case Study

REFERENCES 1. Barbalace, K., The History of Waste. EnvironmentalChemistry.com. Aug. 2003. Accessed on-line:11/19/2008 http://EnvironmentalChemistry.com/yogi/environmental/ wastehistory.html 2. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 3. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. 4. Young, G.C., “From Waste Solids to Fuel,” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. 5. “Summary Report: Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies,” Prepared for: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, 419S. Spring Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, September 2005. 6. “Conversion Technology Evaluation Report,” Prepared for: The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and The Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force’s Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, August 18, 2005. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Landﬁll Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), www.epa.gov/lmop, Washington, D.C., 2008. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An Overview of Landﬁll Gas Energy in the United States, Landﬁll Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), June 24, 2008. 9. Genivar, Ramboll, Jacques Whitford, Deloitte and URS, “The Regional Municipality of Halton, Step 1B: EFW Technology Overview,” 30 May 2007, Oakville, Ontario, Canada. 10. Circeo, L.J., Engineering & Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology, Technological Forum, Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services Center, Marion, Iowa, November 22, 2005. 11. Dodge, E., “Plasma-Gasiﬁcation of Waste,” Cornell University—Johnson Graduate School of Management, Queens University School of Business, July 2008. 12. Schneider, K., “Incinerator Operators Say Ruling Will Be Costly,” The New York Times, May 3, 1994. 13. Moustakas, K., et al., “Demonstration plasma gasiﬁcation/vitriﬁcation system for effective hazardous waste treatment,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 123, pp. 120–126, 2005.

CHAPTER 2

How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage To Electricity and a Case Study?

Subject: Preliminary Economic Evaluation for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facility at 500 ton/day MSW Capacity using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology Background: Many areas have a need for establishing and/or extending a landﬁll. As an alternative to the existing concept of a landﬁll, recently developed and early commercialization in Plasma Arc technology has been applied to the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW). This recent development would eliminate or minimize the need for a landﬁll and this approach is known as Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of MSW. A Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility with a 500 ton/day capacity has been stated as the size necessary for treating the Linn County MSW. Thus, this capacity was selected as reasonable with economy of scale for conducting a preliminary economic analysis. Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) is a very high-temperature pyrolysis type of process (7,200–12,600 F) whereby the organics of waste solids (MSW) are converted to a synthesis gas (syngas) and the inorganics and minerals of the waste solids (MSW) produce a rocklike by-product.1,2–5 The syngas is predominantly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2).3,6,5 The inorganics and minerals in the waste solids (MSW) are converted to a vitriﬁed slag typically comprising metals and silica glass. This vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA standards. Metals can be recovered from the slag and the slag can be used to produce other by-products such as rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, landscaping blocks to mention a few.1,2–5 One of the simpler recyclable uses of the slag is as a road material but at a much lower economic value.1 The synthesis type of gas can be used to produce electricity, and the rocklike by-product can be used as a material for road construction, since it is environmentally acceptable. The fuel/syngas produces by-products hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfur via the gas cleanup step.4 Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TAKE GARBAGE TO ELECTRICITY AND A CASE STUDY

FIGURE 2.1

17

MSW to Energy, Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation.1,2

In this article, the economics are performed on a process for converting MSW by a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process (a pyrolysis process) to a syngas and a vitriﬁed slag. The syngas is used to generate electricity and the slag as a road material. The bottom line is a process for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll, and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. MSW can be processed using the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process and simply represented as Fig. 2.1.1,2 One ton of MSW uses 500 kWh of the total electricity produced by the process but recent technological advances have reduced this usage to 200 kWh/ton of MSW.7 The vitriﬁed slag or rock residue produced is 400 pounds. The above simpliﬁed representation of the MSW pyrolysis step (Fig. 2.1) can be shown as a simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram that shows that only the fuel/gas could be used for the generation of electricity and/or the synthesis of chemicals (Fig. 2.2).4

FIGURE 2.2

Process Flow Diagram, Plasma Gasiﬁcation System, Applied to MSW.4

18

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TAKE GARBAGE TO ELECTRICITY AND A CASE STUDY

Cost ($millions)

300

200

Incineration-Only Incineration-WTE Plasma Stand-Alone WTE Plasma/Coal Plant WTE

100

0

0

1000

2000

3000

Capacity (tons/day)

FIGURE 2.3

Capital Cost and Capacity, Plasma Gasiﬁcation System, Applied to MSW.1

The capital cost for a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process to produce electricity and a vitriﬁed slag can be deduced from Fig. 2.3 that depicts capital cost versus capacity.1 Thus, with the information presented so far, preliminary economics can be deduced for the needs of Linn County, Iowa at a plant capacity of 500 tons/day of MSW. As stated, the excess electrical energy produced for sale is 800 kWh/ton MSW. The following economic cases #1 and #2 apply at breakeven. Capital Investment Industry and Local Government (Financed)

Tipping Fee for MSW at Breakeven

Case 1 $30,480,000

$48,690,000

$35.00/ton

146,000,000 kWh/year2 for sale at 2.5 ¢/kWh and government incentive payments of 1.8 ¢/kWh

Case 2 $0

$79,170,000

$49.20/ton

146,000,000 kWh/year2 for sale at 2.5 ¢/kWh and government incentive payments of 1.8 ¢/kWh

Government grant

Comments

Note: The current tipping fee at a landﬁll is about $35 per ton of MSW.

Now, if the excess electrical energy for sale is 600 kWh/ton MSW, then the following economic cases #3 & #4 apply at breakeven. Case 3 $45,562,000

$33,608,000

$35.00/ton

109,500,000 kWh/year2 for sale at 2.5 ¢/kWh and government incentive payments of 1.8 ¢/kWh

Case 4 $0

$79,170,000

$56.17/ton

109,500,000 kWh/year2 for sale at 2.5 ¢/kWh and government incentive payments of 1.8 ¢/kWh

ECONOMIC CASES

19

If the government incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh is replaced with a 1.8 cents/ kWh tax credit similar to that used for wind energy and a utility company sells the energy produced, a break-even case #5 applies. Case 5 $0

$79,170,000

$35.00/ton

109,500,000 kWh/year2 for sale at 6.72 ¢/kWh and with government tax credits of 1.8 ¢/kWh

BASIS A Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility operates at 500-tons/day capacity for the treatment of MSW with a “total” capital investment of $79,170,000.1,8–10 Capital ﬁnanced for the project would be at 5.75% interest for 20 years and making two payments per year. A government incentive of 1.8 cents/kWh revenue to produce a renewable energy up to maximum payment of $750,000.00 per year and a 1.0 cent/kWh revenue from green tags associated with renewable energy production were used in the ﬁnancial analysis. In cases #1 & #2, the facility would generate 146,000,000 kWh/year of electrical energy (renewable energy) for sale to the grid system at 2.5 cents/kWh.2 In cases #3 and #4, the facility would generate 109,500,000 kWh/year of electrical energy for sale to the grid system at 2.5 cents/kWh.1 The by-product rock material would be sold as a road construction material at $15/ton.1 Such cost considerations for Operations and Maintenance and a Capital Budget Reserve have been considered in the economic evaluation. Over 50 jobs would be created by this new plasma facility. The basis for case 5 is similar to that for case –4, except that a government tax credit of 1.8 cents/kWh is used rather than a cash incentive payment. Also, the utility company sells the excess power generated at 6.72 cents/kWh for a break-even tipping fee of $35.00/ton MSW. ECONOMIC CASES From these “initial” economic analyses, one likely approach to a business plan involves a cooperative effort between a local utility and local governmental entities. Thus, the local government participates in the MSW treatment part of the Plasma Arc facility while the local utility participates in the electrical energy (renewable energy) producing part of the facility. Thus, the local government remains in the MSW business while the utility stays in the electrical energy business. This appears to be a win-win situation for the local government and the utility. Case 1 presents the preliminary economics of a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility for Linn County, Iowa for a facility producing 800 kWh/ton MSW for sale as excess energy. Private/Industry invests 61.5% of the total capital and a governmental grant for the remaining 38.5% of the capital requirements. The cooperative venture results in a “tipping fee” for the MSW of $35/ton at breakeven. A tipping fee of $35/ton of MSW is typical for Linn County, Iowa.8,9

20

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TAKE GARBAGE TO ELECTRICITY AND A CASE STUDY

Case 2 presents an economic evaluation similar to the previous case but private/ industry ﬁnances 100% of the total capital requirements of $79,170,000. The net result at breakeven is for the “tipping fee” to be increased to $49.20/ton MSW. If, however, Case 2 had the electrical energy produced sold at 4.5 cents/kWh, the breakeven price for the tipping fee would be about $33/ton MSW. Case 3 presents the preliminary economics of a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility for Linn County, Iowa for a facility producing 600 kWh/ton MSW for sale as excess energy. Private/Industry invests 42.5% of the total capital and a governmental grant for the remaining 57.5% of the capital requirements. The cooperative venture results in a “tipping fee” for the MSW of $35/ton at breakeven. A tipping fee of $35/ton of MSW is typical for Linn County, Iowa.8,9 Case 4 presents an economic evaluation similar to the previous case but private/ industry ﬁnances 100% of the total capital requirements of $79,170,000. The net result at breakeven is for the “tipping fee” to be increased to $56.17/ton MSW. If, however, case 4 had the electrical energy produced sold at 4.5 cents/kWh, the break-even price for the tipping-fee would be about $44/ton MSW. Case 5 is similar to case 4 except that a government tax credit of 1.8 cents/kWh is used rather than a cash incentive payment. Also, the utility company sells the excess power generated at 6.72 cents/kWh for a break-even tipping fee of $35.00/ton MSW. Additionally, the utility company generates a tax credit of $1,971,000.00 per year. With the tax credit considered as a revenue source, the break-even selling price for energy produced becomes 4.92 ¢/kWh.

LOGICAL APPROACH FOR FUTURE PROGRESS A logical approach is to take initial economics presented for a particular area and periodically “update” the analysis by a cooperative effort between governmental body(s) and industrial entity(s) so that both parties will have a fully transparent evolvement and trust in the ﬁnal economic analysis. Thus, this factual, transparent, updated economic analysis will therefore determine the ﬁnal approach taken by both government and industry for that particular area investigated to determine if Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to a landﬁll.11 As a ﬁnal comment, the attractiveness of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology is in the generation of renewable electrical energy with a useful by-product having environmentally acceptable properties. The bottom line is a process based upon “plasma technology” for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll, and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. In summation, a utility company in partnership with a local government would likely be the most economical combination and have the most positive beneﬁt to the environment. In this article, the economics were stated as preliminary since such evaluations are site speciﬁc and should be done speciﬁcally for each case under study, and plasma processing of MSW is an emerging technology.

REFERENCES

21

With some diligence, a viable business plan can be developed from the consideration of the many factors inﬂuencing the economics associated with a speciﬁc site selection and surrounding community. Now that the key process concepts are presented in Fig. 2.2 and process economics, a discussion follows about more details of processing the crude syngas from the gasiﬁer. Raw syngas exiting the gasiﬁer is typically cooled in a ﬁre-tube boiler from high gasiﬁcation temperature to about 700 F. Any char ofﬂy ash producedfrom the ﬁnalzone of the gasiﬁer and entrained with the crude syngas stream is removed by a downstream cyclone and candle ﬁlter particulate control devices and returned to the gasiﬁer. The candle ﬁlter is composed of ceramic candle ﬁlter elements and cleaned by the commonly accepted back-pulsing concept with syngas. The raw syngas exits at 700 F. The raw syngas introduced into the ﬁre-tube syngas cooler produces steam for use in a turbine that becomes part of the heat recovery system. Raw syngas then enters a scrubber at 700 F for removal of any remaining particulates and trace components. Next, the syngas stream is sent to a hydrolysis reactor whereby the carbonyl sulﬁde (COS) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are converted to hydrogen sulﬁde (H2S). The syngas stream is then processed by a mercury removal system such as by Eastman Chemical consisting of a packed bed of a special activated carbon that removes the mercury, arsenic, and trace materials. Following the mercury removal system, a Selexol unit can be used to remove H2S and CO2 from the cool syngas. A polishing unit of zinc oxide removes any residual H2S and achieves a high-purity syngas stream. As discussed, the process unit operations are presented to give a conceptual idea of the process equipment and technology currently available to clean up a raw syngas from a gasiﬁer. Many existing technologies and engineering experiences are available for design and further development for the cleanup of raw syngas from gasiﬁers. It is just important to become familiar with these technologies and to form the proper team whereby such important technologies are integrated properly into the waste-to-energy gasiﬁcation process.12 Final selection of the gas cleanup process parameters will depend on the wastes selected for feedstock to the gasiﬁcation process.

REFERENCES 1. Circeo, L.J., Engineering & Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology, Technological Forum, Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services Center, Marion, Iowa, November 22, 2005. 2. Circeo, L.J., “Engineering & Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology,” Presentation, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 2005. 3. Vera, R., “Organic Waste, Gasiﬁcation and Cogeneration,” Presentation, Trinity Plasma Technology, Technologies International Corporation, Trinity Consultants, Inc., 2005. 4. Recovered Energy, Inc., Pocatello, Idaho, www.recoveredenergy.com, “Process Flow Diagram,” MSW into energy and useable by-products.

22

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TAKE GARBAGE TO ELECTRICITY AND A CASE STUDY

5. “Summary Report: Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies,” Prepared for: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, 419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, September 2005. 6. Lee, C.C., “Plasma System,” Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1989, p. 8.169. 7. Circeo, L.J., Private Communication, April 4, 2006. 8. “Expert Touts Plasma Torch,” The Gazette, November 22, 2005. 9. “Plasma Arc Technology may Help Linn Garbage Woes,” The Gazette, November 20, 2005. 10. Circeo, L.J. and Smith, M.S., “Plasma Processing of MSW at Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Presentation, Health and Environmental Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2005. 11. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 12. DOE/NETL-2007/1260, “Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer–Tropsch Liquids Facility,” Final Report for Subtask 41817.401.01.08.001, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), April 9, 2007.

CHAPTER 3

How Can Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Take Garbage to Liquid Fuels and Case Studies?

Two approaches or synthesis routes will be presented in this chapter to produce a liquid fuel from MSW. Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation will be used to produce the Syngas. The Chemistry route or the Biochemistry route will then be used to convert the Syngas to a liquid fuel. The Chemistry route will use a FischerTropsch catalyst method to convert the Syngas to a liquid fuel. The Biochemical route will use microbes to convert the Syngas to a liquid fuel. MSW TO SYNGAS TO LIQUID FUELS VIA CHEMISTRY (FISCHER–TROPSCH SYNTHESIS) AND A CASE STUDY Subject: Preliminary Economic Evaluation for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facility Using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology to Produce Liquid Fuels (Ethanol/Methanol) via a Chemistry Fischer-Tropsch synthesis route. Background: Many areas in the United States have both carbonaceous resources such as coal deposits and renewable resources/wastes such as landﬁlls, which are potential sources of energy. In the near future, more utilities will use these coal resources for gasiﬁcation power plants utilizing Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology to generate electrical/steam energy. With new technology, the wastes in the landﬁlls can be gasiﬁed and converted to electrical/ steam energy. Much of this potential energy source in the landﬁll is in the form of municipal solid waste (MSW) and industrial waste (IW) produced daily and/or in an existing landﬁll. Whether coal or MSW is used as the raw material, new power plants will gasify these materials to predominantly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), known as syngas. This syngas can be converted to electrical/steam and/or liquid fuels/chemicals. Thus, a gasiﬁcation power plant can be ﬂexible with

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

23

24

GARBAGE TO LIQUID FUELS

a syngas that can produce electricity on demand and simultaneously produce some liquid fuels/chemicals during off-peak periods. Such a synergy of syngas processes in producing electricity and fuels/chemicals should maximize the bottom line for a gasiﬁcation facility. In reality, a gasiﬁcation facility, due to syngas, places a utility into the “synthesis business,” i.e., synthesizing electricity and/or fuels. Both of these processes, coal gasiﬁcation and MSW gasiﬁcation to steam/electrical energy, have previously been economically evaluated commercially.1,2 Thus, this article will evaluate the commercial gasiﬁcation economics of MSW to syngas for the production of liquid fuels such as ethanol and methanol. Speciﬁcally, the economics of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology will be evaluated as applied to the treatment of MSW, since this technology is considered the most efﬁcient of the gasiﬁcation processes.3 For example, conventional gasiﬁcation plant produces about 685 kWh/ton MSW (net energy to the grid compared to Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation plant with 816 kWh/ton MSW). Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process can be used to produce a syngas, which can be converted to liquid fuels via Fischer–Tropsch synthesis.4 For example, consider an ethanol/methanol plant using MSW as a raw material with a capacity of 500 tons/day MSW. The MSW can be gasiﬁed to a syngas using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology and then converted to liquid fuels (ethanol and methanol) via Fischer– Tropsch synthesis of the syngas. For this plant, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted. A simpliﬁed schematic is shown in Fig. 3.1 for such a process (combined Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation and ethanol/methanol Fischer-Tropsch synthesis plant). Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of MSW is a very hightemperature pyrolysis type of process (7,200–12,600 F) whereby the organics of waste solids (MSW) are converted to a synthesis gas (syngas) and the inorganics and

FIGURE 3.1 Selected Synthesis Gas Options for Syngas.

MSW TO SYNGAS TO LIQUID FUELS VIA CHEMISTRY

25

minerals of the waste solids (MSW) produce a rocklike by-product.5,6 The syngas is predominantly CO and H2.6,7 The inorganics and minerals in the waste solids (MSW) are converted to a vitriﬁed slag comprising typically metals and silica glass. This vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA standards. Metals can be recovered from the slag and the slag can be used to produce other by-products such as rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, landscaping blocks to mention a few.5,6 One of the simpler recyclable uses of the slag is as a road material but at much lower economic value than the other uses mentioned.5 The rocklike by-product is useful as a road construction material, since it is environmentally acceptable.8,9 One primary requirement of the vitriﬁed slag for use as a road material is to be highly nonleachable. A primary analysis used to show nonleachable characteristics is the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) as in the risk assessment portion of EPA’s 1999 Report to Congress. TCLP tests conducted on the vitriﬁed slag produced from MSW using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Reactor are shown in Table 3.1.8 Road material/stones derived from a slag, using a high-temperature melting process (vitriﬁcation process, 1,450 C), pass TCLP analysis and have been used as aggregates in asphalt and concrete.9 When stones were used as a substitute for asphalt aggregate in constructing a public road in Kamagaya City, Japan, no difference was observed between the road construction area using these stones as substitute for coarse and ﬁne aggregates compared to that using natural aggregates.9 When these stones were used as concrete aggregates, the results were better than using natural aggregates. Concrete aggregate strength tests are shown in Table 3.2 when substituting 100% of the stones for coarse aggregates. The synthesis type of gas can be used to produce electricity, steam, and/or liquid fuels. The syngas can be converted into liquid fuels such as ethanol and methanol via Fischer–Tropsch catalytic process. The fuel/syngas produces hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfur as by-products via the cleanup step. The economics are performed on a process for converting MSW by a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process (a pyrolysis process) to a syngas and a vitriﬁed slag. The syngas will be used to generate predominantly, ethanol and methanol, and the slag as a road material. The ethanol product can be used in an ethanol blend motor fuel, and the methanol can be used in biodiesel manufacturing. The bottom line is a process for treating MSW TABLE 3.1

TCLP Tests on Vitriﬁed Slag TCLP

Heavy Metal Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Source: Ref. (8).

Permissible Concentration (mg/l)

Measured Concentration (mg/l)

5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0

<0.1 0.47 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

26

GARBAGE TO LIQUID FUELS

TABLE 3.2

Concrete Aggregate Strength Test Result of Concrete Aggregate Strength Test

Base concrete 100% substitute for coarse aggregates

Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Flexural Strength (N/mm2)

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

34.8 39.3

4.85 5.09

2.68 2.98

Source: Ref. (9).

TABLE 3.3

Economics of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Facility, Case Study

Case Capital for plasma plant Capital for ethanol/methanol plant11 Total capital investment

Capital Investment Industry and Local Government

Tipping Fee for MSW

$67,723,000

$35.00/ton

Ethanol Sales Price $2.0896/ gallon

Methanol Sales Price $0.93/ gallon

$26,954,000

$94,677,000

Net revenue before taxes from combined cacility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $6,128,800.00 per year Note: The current tipping fee at a landﬁll in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area is about $35 per ton of MSW, which is typical for many parts of the country.

thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll, and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites and simultaneously produce valuable motor fuels. The capital cost for the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process to produce electricity and/ or syngas and a vitriﬁed slag can be found in a previous publication, and the capital cost for the ethanol/methanol synthesis process were determined elsewhere.1,10 Thus, with the information presented so far, a preliminary evaluation and economics can be deduced for a Plasma Arc plant using MSW with sufﬁcient capacity to supply both electricity and syngas for an adjacent process plant for producing ethanol and methanol.1 Plant capacity was taken as 500 tons/day MSW for the economic case shown in Table 3.3. Basis A Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility operates at 500-tons/day capacity for treatment of MSW with a “total” Capital Investment of $67,723,000 for the Plasma

MSW TO SYNGAS TO LIQUID FUELS VIA CHEMISTRY

27

Arc processing plant and about $26,954,000 for the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis processing plant including the distillation unit for the separation of the two alcohols, ethanol and methanol.5,12–14,10 The plasma plant supplies sufﬁcient energy as electricity/steam to the overall plant for the production of about 10,406,400 gallons per year of alcohol mixture, which is about 60% ethanol and 40% methanol.12 The alcohol mixture yield was taken at a conservative value of about 95 gallons per ton MSW (dry material). Capital cost of the overall plant is $94,677,000.1,15,10 Capital ﬁnanced for both plants would be at 6.00% interest for 20 years by making two payments per year. The by-product rock material would be sold as a road construction material at $15/ton.5 Cost considerations for operations and maintenance, a capital budget reserve, process water, and sewer have been considered in the economic evaluation. Over 40 þ jobs would be created by a combined plasma and liquid fuel (ethanol/methanol) facility. The combined facility is self-sufﬁcient in electrical and steam energy requirements, since this energy is produced internally from a renewable raw material, MSW. Economic Case From these “initial” economic analyses, one likely approach to a business plan is for a cooperative effort between a local utility, local industry, and/or local governmental entities. Thus, the local government participates in the MSW treatment part of the Plasma Arc facility while the local utility participates in the electrical/steam energy/syngas and liquid fuels producing part of the facility. Alternately, a local industrial/business entity could own/operate the liquid fuel (ethanol/methanol) facility. Thus, the local government remains in the MSW business while the utility and/or industry stays in the electrical, steam, and liquid fuel energy businesses. This appears to be a win-win situation for the local government, utility, and local industry. The preliminary economics of the combined Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation and Fischer– Tropsch Catalytic Synthesis facility was considered for a Linn County/Cedar Rapids, Iowa area facility processing about 500 tons/day of MSW. A positive cash ﬂow is obtained for a cooperative venture with a “tipping fee” for the MSW of $35.00/ton and a selling price of ethanol at $2.0896 per gallon and methanol at $0.93 per gallon.16,17 A tipping fee of $35/ton of MSW is typical for Linn County, Iowa.12,13 Net revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $6,128,800.00 per year. If the alcohol mixture yield was taken at a value of about 113 gallons per ton MSW (dry material) rather than the previous yield of 95 gallons/ton MSW (dry material), the net revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $8,661,800.00 per year.10 The alcohol mixture produced would be 12,439,100 gallons per year. As expected, this economic evaluation demonstrates the commercial importance of utilizing the Fischer–Tropsch catalyst with the highest yield for the products desired.12 In today’s energy market, Fischer–Tropsch catalysts with higher yields and selectivity for desired products are most likely to be just over the horizon.

28

GARBAGE TO LIQUID FUELS

Logical Approach for Future Progress A logical approach is to take initial economics presented for a particular area and periodically “update” the analysis by a cooperative effort between governmental body(s) and industrial entity(s) so both parties will have a fully transparent evolvement and trust in the ﬁnal economic analysis. Thus, this factual, transparent, updated economic analysis will therefore determine ﬁnal approach taken by both government and industry for that particular area investigated to determine if Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to a landﬁll when integrated with a Fischer–Tropsch synthesis plant. As a ﬁnal comment, the attractiveness of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology lies in the generation of renewable electrical/steam energy with useful by-products. The bottom line is a process based upon “plasma technology” for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll, and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. The energy generated from the plasma plant can supply energy for itself and additional syngas for the production of saleable electricity and other products such as liquid fuels. Other fuels can be produced besides alcohols using Fischer–Tropsch synthesis such as illustrated in Fig. 3.2 for various options.1,15,18,19

FIGURE 3.2

Selected Synthesis Gas Options for Gases, Fuels, and Chemicals.4

MSW TO SYNGAS TO LIQUID FUEL VIA BIOCHEMISTRY AND A CASE STUDY

29

A utility and/or business company(s) in partnership with a local government would likely be the most economical combination and have the most positive beneﬁt to the environment and ﬁnancial reward to the local area. In this article, the economics were stated as preliminary, since such evaluations are site speciﬁc and should be done speciﬁcally for each case under study, and plasma processing of MSW is an emerging technology. With some diligence, a viable business plan can be developed from the consideration of the many factors inﬂuencing the economics associated with a speciﬁc site selection, economy of scale, and the surrounding community.

MSW TO SYNGAS TO LIQUID FUEL VIA BIOCHEMISTRY AND A CASE STUDY Subject: Preliminary Economic Evaluation for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facility using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology to Produce Liquid Fuel (Ethanol) via a Biochemistry synthesis route. Background: Areas in the United States typically have carbonaceous deposits such as wastes in landﬁlls, which are potential sources of renewable energy. In the near future, more communities and/or utilities will use these resources for power plants with gasiﬁcation technology to generate electrical/steam energy. With new technology, the wastes in the landﬁlls can be gasiﬁed and converted to electrical/steam energy. Much of this potential energy source in the landﬁll is in the form of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Industrial Waste (IW) produced daily and/or in an existing landﬁll. With MSW used as the raw material, new power plants will gasify this material to predominantly Carbon monoxide (CO) and Hydrogen (H2), known as syngas. This Syngas can be converted to electricity/steam and/or liquid fuels/chemicals. Thus, a gasiﬁcation power plant can be ﬂexible with a syngas that can produce electricity on demand and simultaneously produce some liquid fuels/chemicals during off-peak periods. Such a synergy of syngas processes in producing electricity and fuels/chemicals should maximize the bottom line for a Gasiﬁcation facility. In reality, a gasiﬁcation facility, due to syngas, places a utility into the “synthesis business,” i.e., synthesizing electricity and/or fuels. MSW gasiﬁcation to steam/electrical energy has previously been economically evaluated commercially.1,2 This article will evaluate the commercial gasiﬁcation economics of MSW to syngas for the production of liquid fuel, such as ethanol. Speciﬁcally, the economics of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology will be evaluated as applied to the treatment of MSW, since this technology is considered the most efﬁcient of the gasiﬁcation processes.3 Speciﬁcally, the syngas produced by the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation step will be converted into ethanol via a biochemical process. This biochemical process is called the BRI process.20,21,22,23 Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process can be used to produce a syngas, which can be converted to liquid fuel such as ethanol via biochemical technology. For example,

30

GARBAGE TO LIQUID FUELS

FIGURE 3.3 ethanol.4,23

MSW to Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation—Syngas—Biochemical (BRI, Inc.)—

consider an ethanol plant using MSWas a raw material with a capacity of 500 tons/day MSW. The MSW can be gasiﬁed to a syngas using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology and then converted to liquid fuel via biochemical fermentation process. For this plant, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted. A simpliﬁed schematic is shown for such a process (combined Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation and ethanol plant via BRI biochemical process) in Fig. 3.3.4,23 As illustrated in Fig. 3.3, MSW can be gasiﬁed using a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation reactor producing a syngas (predominantly CO and H2). The syngas is cleaned and cooled to 98 F prior to entering a fermenter (biocatalytic reactor) where ethanol is produced. A form of bacteria culture Clostridium ljungdahlii is used in the fermenter, and nutrients are added to provide cell growth and regeneration of the biocatalyst. The anaerobic fermentation takes place such that water and ethanol are the end products. The dilute ethanol aqueous solution from the fermenter is about 2–3% ethanol. Higher concentrations of ethanol inhibit bacteria metabolism. The dilute ethanol solution enters the distillation step and ﬁnished product is 99.5% pure industrial or fuel-grade ethanol.20,22,23 The process recovers waste heat from syngas as it exits the gasiﬁer and must be treated and cooled prior to the fermentation process. Overall, the process generates a surplus of energy that can be used to produce steam for export or produce electricity for sale to the grid.20,21,22,23

BASIS AND ECONOMICS

31

BASIS AND ECONOMICS The preliminary economics of this process from MSW to ﬁnished ethanol product will be determined as illustrated in Fig. 3.3. Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of MSW is a very high-temperature pyrolysis type of process (7,200– 12,600 F) whereby the organics of waste solids (MSW) are converted to a syngas and the inorganics and minerals of the waste solids (MSW) produce a rocklike byproduct.5,6 The syngas is predominantly CO and H2.6,7 The inorganics and minerals in the waste solids (MSW) are converted to a vitriﬁed slag typically comprising metals and silica glass. This vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA standards. The vitriﬁed slag will be sold as a road material. Syngas from the gasiﬁer will be cleaned and cooled to 98 F prior to transport to the fermentation process whereby an aqueous stream of ethanol is produced and distilled into a ﬁnished fuel-grade ethanol. A Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility, like a facility beﬁtting Linn County of Iowa, would operate at 500-tons/day capacity for treatment of MSW at 23.2 wt.% moisture with a capital investment of $76,187,800 for the Plasma Arc processing plant and about $35,408,000 for the biochemical fermentation processing plant including the distillation unit for the separation of the ethanol from the aqueous stream. The plasma plant supplies sufﬁcient energy as electricity/steam to the overall plant for the production of about 12,989,500 gallons/year saleable product. Capital cost of the overall plant is $111,595,800. Capital is ﬁnanced at 6.00% interest for 20 years by making two payments per year. The by-product rock material (vitriﬁed slag) is sold as a road construction material at $15/ton.5 Cost considerations for operations and maintenance, a capital budget reserve, coke for use in the gasiﬁcation reactor, process water, and sewer have been considered in the economic evaluation for a sum of $10,172,800 per year. Over 40 þ jobs at an hourly wage of $28/hour would be created by a combined plasma and liquid fuel ethanol facility. The combined facility is selfsufﬁcient in electrical and steam energy requirements, since this energy is produced internally from a renewable raw material, MSW. In fact, the overall process creates excess energy from sale to the grid of the amount of 0.0128 MW/(tons MSW/day) processed for syngas to the biochemical plant and sold at 4.5 ¢/kWh. A “tipping fee” of $35.00/ton MSW processed was considered as a revenue source, which is typical if this material was diverted instead to a landﬁll. Selling price of the ethanol is $1.8966/gallon.24 Net revenue before taxes from the combined facility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $14,442,000/year. The manufacturing cost per gallon of ethanol produced was $1.5269/gallon. This economic case is summarized in Table 3.4. Another case was computed with a change in the capital cost for the facility as follows: Capital

Gasiﬁcation Plant—$67,722,500.00 Total capital¼$98,512,000.00 at 6.00% interest for 20 years at two payments/year

Fermentation Plant—$30,789,500.00

32 12,989,497 gallons/year at $1.8966/gallon

Total capital ¼ $111,595,800.00 at 6.00% interest for 20 years at two payments/year 500 tpd MSW, 182,500 ton/year at $35.00/ton (tipping fee) ¼ $6,387,500.00/year 143,334 ton/year MSW gasiﬁed to syngas for use in fermentation 33,816,724 kWh/year at 4.5 ¢/kWh

Gasiﬁcation Plant—$76,187,800.00

Economic Case, 500 ton/day MSW to Syngas—Fermentation—Ethanol

Electricity (excess) energy (renewable energy) for sale Green tags at 2.00 ¢/kWh for renewable energy sold to the grid State of Iowa tax credit at 1.5 ¢/kWh for renewable energy sold to grid Vitriﬁed slag (0.2 ton vitriﬁed slag/ton MSW): 36,500 tons/year sold at $15.00/ton Ethanol production Manufacturing cost per gallon of ethanol produced ¼ $1.5269/gallon

Syngas

MSW

Capital

TABLE 3.4

Fermentation Plant—$35,408,000.00

REFERENCES

33

With all other parameters as the previous case, the net revenue before taxes from the combined facility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $15,574,000/year. The manufacturing cost per gallon of ethanol produced was $1.4398/gallon. Company(s) in partnership with a local government could be an economical combination and have the most positive beneﬁt to the environment and ﬁnancial reward for the local area. The economics were stated as preliminary, since such evaluations are site speciﬁc and should be done speciﬁcally for each case under study, and plasma processing of MSW as well as biochemical technology is an emerging technology. With some diligence, a viable business plan can be developed from the consideration of the many factors inﬂuencing the economics associated with a speciﬁc site selection, economy of scale, and the surrounding community.

REFERENCES 1. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 2. DOE/NETL-2007/1281, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Vol. 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Final Report,” May 2007. 3. Genivar, Ramboll, Jacques Whitford, Deloitte, and URS, “The Regional Municipality of Halton, Step 1B: EFW Technology Overview,” 30 May 2007, Oakville, Ontario, Canada. 4. Young, G.C., “From Waste Solids to Fuel,” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. 5. Circeo, L.J., Engineering and Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology, Technological Forum, Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services Center, Marion, Iowa, November 22, 2005. 6. “Summary Report: Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies,” Prepared for: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, 419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, September 2005. 7. Lee, C.C., “Plasma System,” Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1989, p. 8.169. 8. Circeo, L.J., “Evaluation of Plasma Arc Technology for the Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in Georgia,” Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, January 1997. 9. Nishida, K., et. al., “Melting and Stone Production Using MSW Incinerated Ash,” Tsukishima Kikai Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, 1999. 10. Syntec Biofuel Research, Inc., Private Communication, Vancouver, Canada, August 2007. 11. PaciﬁCorp, A MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, Request for Proposal Technical Conference: Utah Docket 05-035-47, April 3, 2006; IGCC Cost of Energy Estimates; David Sokol, Chairman & CEO of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. 12. “Expert touts plasma torch,” The Gazette, November 22, 2005. 13. “Plasma arc technology may help Linn garbage woes,” The Gazette, November 20, 2005. 14. Circeo, L.J., “Engineering and Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology,” Presentation, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 2005.

34

GARBAGE TO LIQUID FUELS

15. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. 16. Methanex Company, www.methanex.com, August 1–August 31, 2007. 17. American Coalition of Ethanol, www.ethanol.org, State Average Ethanol Rack Prices, Iowa, August 16, 2007. 18. Sasol Chevron, www.sasolchevron.com, London, United Kingdom, 2007. 19. Jenkins, B.M. and Williams, R.B., “Thermal Technologies for Waste Management,” University of California, Davis, April 2006. 20. Stewart, J.L., “The Co-Production of Ethanol and Electricity From Carbon-Based Wastes,” BRI Energy, LLC, March 2006. 21. Bruce, W.F., “The Co-Production of Ethanol and Electricity From Carbon-Based Wastes,” BRI Energy, LLC, 2006. 22. MacDonald, T., Schuetzie, D., Tamblyn, G., and Tornatore, F., “Assessment of Conversion Technologies for Bioalcohol Fuel Production,” Western Governor’s Association National Biomass State and Regional Partnership Report, Category XII—Fermentation of Syngas From Thermochemical Processes, Bioengineering Resources, Inc., Fayetteville, Arkansas, July 2006. 23. Vessia, O., Finden, P., and Skreiberg, O., Biofuels from lignocellulosic material—In the Norwegian context 2010—Technology, Potential and Cost, NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, December 20, 2005. 24. American Coalition for Ethanol, State Average Ethanol Rack Prices, $1.8966/gallon, Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

CHAPTER 4

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Electricity, Case Study with Economy of Scale

Subject: “Preliminary” Economic Evaluation for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Commercial Waste (CW), and Industrial Waste (IW) Located in Marion, Cedar Rapids, and Linn County, Iowa Using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology A preliminary economic analysis was conducted to evaluate the use of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology for the management of municipal solid waste (MSW) for the Linn County, Cedar Rapids, and Marion, Iowa area. When MSW is gasiﬁed, the products are synthesis gas “syngas” and vitriﬁed slag. For the purposes of this economic evaluation, the “syngas” is used to generate electricity and the slag is used as a road material. The basic Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Process being evaluated is represented in Fig. 4.1. For the economic analysis, the quantity of MSW for processing in the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility was determined. The following quantities of waste to be treated are from the Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency, Landﬁll Tonnage, Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency, Fiscal Year-to-Date June 30 Comparison, November 12, 2007 and Bluestem Solid Waste Agency, Paper Mill Sludge Disposal Options Study, August 2003, Howard R. Green Company, Project No. 726830-J (Table 4.1).1 The characterization of the MSW can be found at Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).2 Detailed information can be found in this reference. As observed, the waste available on a daily basis for a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility is 724 tons/day. Other parameters used in the economic analysis are shown in Table 4.2.

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

35

36

PLASMA ECONOMICS

FIGURE 4.1

Synthesis Gas Option, Electrical, and Steam Energy.

With these economic factors, Fig. 4.2 was created. With a feed rate of about 724 tons/day of waste, the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility generates about $10 million annually, Net Annual Revenue Before Taxes (Total Annual Revenues–Total Annual Expenditures), if electricity is sold at 4.50 ¢/kWh. At a selling price to the grid of 5.50 and 6.50 ¢/kWh, the net annual revenue before taxes is about $13 million and $16 million per year, respectively. Capital investment would be about $130 million. In addition, a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility would create about 50 þ new jobs. At a feed rate of 500 tons/day of waste, net annual revenue before taxes is about $5 million/year at 4.5 ¢/kWh, $7 million/year at 5.5 ¢/kWh, and $9 million/year at 6.5 ¢/kWh. Capital investment would be about $102 million. It becomes clear from Fig. 4.2 that a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility is near break-even point at a capacity of about 200–300 tons waste/day. The net annual revenue before taxes and the inﬂuence of plant capacity are collectively known as “economy of scale.” If the Cedar River Paper Company’s waste at 233 tons/day were unavailable for the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility, the feed to the plant would be about 490 tons/ day of waste. The economic analysis at 500 tons/day reﬂects the net cash revenue values.

PLASMA ECONOMICS

TABLE 4.1

37

Landﬁll Tonnage, Cedar Rapids/Linn County, Iowa

Waste Generator City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa City of Marion, Iowa Cedar River paper Cedar Rapids, Iowa Hauler accounts Cash customers A-1 disposal ABC disposal Waste management Wilson Hauling BFI Rudd sanitation Banner valley Wapsi waste DW Zinser Johnson County refuse Absolute disposal Other charge accounts

Total (Tons/Day) 55.26 14.40 233.00

52.52 100.71 63.54 10.19 39.67 36.02 17.03 17.35 3.83 11.61 4.03 0.00 64.78 723.94

Tons/Day Basis: 365 days per year

Source: Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency, Fiscal Year—2007; Landﬁll Tonnage. Received by landﬁll—Site #2. Ref. (1).

It is clear from Fig. 4.2 that a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility at a capacity of 1,000 tons/day has a net annual revenue before taxes of between $15 and $23 million per year depending on the selling price of electricity. Capital cost is approximately $154 million. Thus, the logical approach is a cooperative effort between one or more governmental bodies and industrial entities, so that the economy of scale is fully realized.

TABLE 4.2

Economic Parameters for Economic Analysis

Item/Parameter Capital Tipping fee (revenue) Vitriﬁed slag selling price Electricity selling price Green tags State tax credit Labor

Value 6.00% at 20 years $35.00/ton waste $15.00/ton 4.50, 5.50, and 6.50 ¢/kWh 2.00 ¢/kWh 1.50 ¢/kWh up to 20 MW $28.00/hour

Other factors considered: Operation and Maintenance (O&M), Maintenance and Operational supplies, and Insurance and Capital Budget Reserve. Note: Owner costs such as land acquisition and licensing fees were not considered, since these costs are site speciﬁc.

38

FIGURE 4.2

Plant Capacity and Net Annual Revenue, Economy of Scale.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (OPINIONS)

39

As a ﬁnal note, the net energy production from a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Facility is estimated at about 21, 30, and 43 MW for a capacity of 500, 700, and 1,000 tons/day, waste, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (OPINIONS) Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is an economically viable technology for the management of MSW in the Linn County, Cedar Rapids, and Marion, Iowa area. This technology can be used for the management of the following types of solid wastes: residential waste (RW), commercial waste (CW), industrial waste (IW), and MSW, which can be a mixture of these wastes. The Energy-from-Waste subcommittee determined that Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process would be the most attractive and economically viable process for handling solid wastes in general. In addition, a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility would create about 50 þ new jobs. Due to economy of scale, electrical energy selling price, and other economic factors, the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process and economics were developed to assist others in the community in evaluation of this relatively new technology for “all” of the citizens in Linn County, Cedar Rapids, and Marion area. Environmentally, Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology exhibits much lower environmental levels of both air emissions and slag leachate toxicity than other potential thermal technologies.3 In addition, this Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology can minimize, if not eliminate, the need for landﬁlls and can be used to eliminate existing old landﬁlls. The old wastes in existing landﬁlls can be “mined/removed” and used as supplemental feed to a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility. Thus, the use of the new Site #2 landﬁll can be minimized if not eventually eliminated and the old Site #1 landﬁll can be eliminated. A logical approach is to take initial economics presented for a particular area and periodically update the analysis by a cooperative effort between one or more governmental bodies and industrial entities, so that both parties will have a fully transparent involvement and trust in the ﬁnal economic analysis. This factual, transparent, updated economic analysis will therefore determine the ﬁnal approach taken by both government and industry when determining if Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to a landﬁll. The attractiveness of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology is the generation of renewable electrical energy and the production of a useful by-product with environmentally acceptable properties. A utility company in partnership with a local government would likely be the most economical combination with a more positive beneﬁt for the environment. Keep in mind that the economics is site speciﬁc and thus should be repeated for each case. Yet this study suggests that with proper diligence, a viable business plan can be developed, an encouraging sign for the future of plasma arc technology. Due to economy of scale, the business plan should strive for a cooperative venture at a plant capacity of about 1,000 tons/day of wastes.

40

PLASMA ECONOMICS

As a ﬁnal comment, this study/report (preliminary economic evaluation) should be considered as Phase-I. Phase-II needs to generate economics of a site-speciﬁc case involving governmental agencies, industrial ﬁrms, and a utility company for the beneﬁt of “all” citizens in the community.

REFERENCES 1. Harthun, B.K., “Bluestem Solid Waste Agency, Paper Mill Sludge Disposal Options Study,” August 2003, Howard R. Green Company, Project No. 726830-J. 2. “Iowa Statewide Waste Characterization Study,” Iowa Department of Natural Resources, R.W. Beck, Inc., January 2006. 3. Circeo, L.J., “Evaluation of Plasma Arc Technology for the Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in Georgia,” Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, January 1997.

CHAPTER 5

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power Ethanol Plants and a Case Study

Subject: Preliminary Economic Evaluation for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facility using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology to Power an Ethanol Plant using Corn Background: Many areas in the Midwest have ethanol plants operating, under construction, or planning. These same areas also have municipal solid waste (MSW) produced daily and/or in an existing landﬁll. In addition, these areas have a need for establishing and/or extending a landﬁll. As an alternative to the existing concept of a landﬁll, recently developed and early commercialization in Plasma Arc technology has been applied to the treatment of MSW. This recent development would eliminate or minimize the need for a landﬁll and this approach is known as Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of MSW. Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process can generate an abundant amount of energy and electricity and/or steam. Nearby is typically an ethanol plant using corn and requiring electricity and a large amount of steam for the fermentation, distillation, and drying operations. Consequently, a typical ethanol plant using corn with a capacity of 50 million gallons/year was considered with a Plasma Arc plant using MSW for conducting a preliminary economic analysis of such a joint process operation. A simpliﬁed schematic (Fig. 5.1), is shown for such a hybrid process (combined Plasma Arc plant and ethanol plant) below. Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) is a very high-temperature pyrolysis type of process (7200–12,600 F) whereby the organics of waste solids (MSW) are converted to a synthesis gas (syngas) and the inorganics and minerals of the waste solids (MSW) produce a rocklike by-product.1–5 The syngas is predominantly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2).3,6,5 The inorganics and minerals in the waste solids (MSW) are converted to a vitriﬁed slag

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

41

42

PLASMA ECONOMICS: GARBAGE/WASTES TO POWER ETHANOL PLANTS

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)

Plasma Arc Plant

CORN

Steam & Electricity

Electricity By-products for Recycle

FIGURE 5.1

"Excess" Electricity To Grid

Ethanol Plant

ETHANOL

Dried Distillers Grains with solubles (DDGS)

Hybrid Process, Combined Plasma Arc, and Ethanol Plant.

typically comprising of metals and silica glass. This vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA standards. Metals can be recovered from the slag and the slag can be used to produce other by-products such as rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, landscaping blocks to mention a few.1–5 One of the simpler recyclable uses of the slag is as a road material but at much lower economic value.1 The synthesis type of gas can be used to produce electricity and the rocklike byproduct can be used as a material for road construction since it is environmentally acceptable. The fuel/syngas produces by-products hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfur via the gas cleanup step.4 In this article, the economics are performed on a process for converting MSW by a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process (a pyrolysis process) to a syngas and a vitriﬁed slag. The syngas will be used to generate electricity, steam and the slag as a road material. The bottom line is a process for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. MSW can be processed using the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process and simply represented as Fig. 5.2.

FIGURE 5.2

MSW to Energy, Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation.1,2

PLASMA ECONOMICS: GARBAGE/WASTES TO POWER ETHANOL PLANTS

FIGURE 5.3

43

Process Flow Diagram, Plasma Gasiﬁcation System, Applied to MSW.4

Note, 1 ton of MSW uses 500 kWh of the total electricity produced by the process but recent technological advances have reduced this usage to 200 kWh/ton of MSW.7 The vitriﬁed slag or rock residue produced is 400 pounds. The simpliﬁed representation of the MSW pyrolysis step (Fig. 5.2) can be shown in a simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram (Fig. 5.3) which also illustrates that the fuel/gas could be used for generation of electricity, steam, and/or for synthesis of chemicals.4 A simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram (Fig. 5.4) is shown below for a typical ethanol plant converting the raw material, corn, into ethanol. The capital cost for a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation process to produce electricity and a vitriﬁed slag can be deduced from Fig. 5.5 that shows capital cost versus capacity.9

FIGURE 5.4

Process Flow Diagram, Corn-to-Ethanol Process, Dry Grind Process.8

44

PLASMA ECONOMICS: GARBAGE/WASTES TO POWER ETHANOL PLANTS

Cost ($millions)

300

200

Incineration-Only Incineration-WTE Plasma Stand-Alone WTE Plasma/Coal Plant WTE

100

0 0

1000

2000

3000

Capacity (tons/day)

FIGURE 5.5 TABLE 5.1

Capital Cost and Capacity, Plasma Gasiﬁcation System, Applied to MSW.9 Economic Cases, Plasma Plant and Ethanol Plant Capital Investment Industry & Local Tipping Fee Government for MSW

Case 1 Capital for plasma plant Capital for ethanol plant

$97,344,000 $65,000,000

Total Capital Investment

$162,344,000

Corn Purchase Price

Ethanol Sales Price

$35.00/ton $3.75/bushel $1.8000/gallon

Net Revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenueexpenditures] ¼ $16,950,000.00 per year Case 2 Capital for plasma plant Capital for ethanol plant

$97,344,000 $65,000,000

Total Capital Investment

$162,344,000

$35.00/ton $3.75/bushel $2.5541/gallon12

Net Revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenueexpenditures] ¼ $54,655,000.00 per year Note: The current tipping fee at a landﬁll in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa area is about $35 per ton of MSW.

Thus, with the information presented so far, a preliminary evaluation and economics can be deduced for a Plasma Arc plant using MSW with sufﬁcient capacity to supply both electricity and steam for an adjacent ethanol plant producing 50 million gallons of ethanol per year from corn.10,11 Consequently, economic cases #1 & #2 were evaluated and presented in Table 5.1. BASIS A Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility operates at a 706-tons/day capacity for the treatment of MSW with a “total” capital investment of $97,344,000.1,13,14,9

ECONOMIC CASES

45

This capacity of plasma plant supplies sufﬁcient energy as electricity and steam to an ethanol plant for the production of 50 million gallons of ethanol per year.11 Capital cost of the ethanol plant is $65,000,000.11 Capital ﬁnanced for both plants would be at 5.75% interest for 20 years by making two payments per year. The Plasma Arc facility would generate 30,000,000 kWh/year of electrical energy (renewable energy) for sale to the ethanol plant at 4.5 cents/kWh.2 A 2.0 cent/kWh revenue from green tags associated with renewable energy electrical production was used in the ﬁnancial analysis for the Plasma Arc plant. In addition, the Plasma Arc plant would supply 1,421,405,000 lbs/year steam for sale to the ethanol plant at a sales price of $5.50/1000 lbs steam. The by-product rock material would be sold as a road construction material at $15/ton.1 On the ethanol facility, 18,518,500 bushels/year of corn are purchased at $3.75/bushel.11 A by-product, Dried Distillers Grain with Solubles (DDGS), is produced at 166,667 tons/year and sold as a cattle feed for $90/ton.11 Cost considerations for operations and maintenance, a capital budget reserve, process water and sewer have been considered in the economic evaluation. Over 100 þ jobs would be created by a combined plasma and ethanol facility. The combined facility is self-sufﬁcient in electrical and steam energy requirements since this energy is produced internally from a renewable raw material, MSW.

ECONOMIC CASES From these “initial” economic analyses, one likely approach to a business plan is for a cooperative effort between a local utility, local industry, and/or local governmental entities. Thus, the local government participates in the MSW treatment part of the Plasma Arc facility while the local utility participates in the electrical and steam energy (renewable energy) producing part of the facility. A local industrial/business entity could own/operate the ethanol facility. Thus, the local government remains in the MSW business while the utility and/or industry stay in the electrical, steam, and ethanol energy businesses. This appears to be a win-win situation for the local government, utility, and local industry. Case 1 presents the preliminary economics of a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Facility combined with an ethanol plant such as for the Linn County/Cedar Rapids, Iowa area for a facility processing 706 tons/day of MSW. The cooperative venture results in a “tipping fee” for the MSW of $35.00/ton and a selling price of ethanol at $1.8000 per gallon. A tipping fee of $35/ton of MSW is typical for Linn County, Iowa.13,14 Net revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenue–expenditures] ¼ $16,950,000.00 per year. Both the Plasma Arc plant and the ethanol plant contribute to positive net revenue. Case 2 presents an economic evaluation similar to the previous case but the selling price of ethanol is $2.5541/gallon.12 The net revenue before taxes from combined facility operation ¼ [revenue-expenditures] ¼ $54,655,000.00 per year. As before, both the Plasma Arc plant and the ethanol plant contribute to positive net revenue.

46

PLASMA ECONOMICS: GARBAGE/WASTES TO POWER ETHANOL PLANTS

LOGICAL APPROACH FOR FUTURE PROGRESS A logical approach is to take initial economics presented for a particular area and periodically “update” the analysis by a cooperative effort between governmental body (s) and industrial entity(s) so that both parties will have a fully transparent evolvement and trust in the ﬁnal economic analysis. Thus, this factual, transparent, updated economic analysis will therefore determine the ﬁnal approach taken by both government and industry for that particular area investigated to determine if Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to a landﬁll when integrated with an ethanol plant.15 As a ﬁnal comment, the attractiveness of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology is the generation of renewable electrical and steam energy with a useful by-product having environmentally acceptable properties. The bottom line is a process based upon “plasma technology” for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. The energy generated from the Plasma technology can supply necessary energy for other removable resources such as for ethanol plants. A utility and/or business company(s) in partnership with a local government would likely be the most economical combination and have the most positive beneﬁt to the environment and ﬁnancial reward to the local area. In this article, the economics were stated as preliminary since such evaluations are site speciﬁc and should be done speciﬁcally for each case under study, and plasma processing of MSW is an emerging technology. With some diligence, a viable business plan can be developed from the consideration of the many factors inﬂuencing the economics associated with a speciﬁc site selection and surrounding community. As a ﬁnal comment, the attractiveness of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology is the generation of renewable electrical energy and with a useful by-product having environmentally acceptable properties. The bottom line is a process based upon “plasma technology” for treating MSW thereby eliminating the need for a landﬁll and can be used to process existing landﬁll MSW sites. A utility company in partnership with a local government would likely be the most economical combination and have the most positive beneﬁt to the environment. In this article, the economics were stated as preliminary since such evaluations are site speciﬁc, should be done speciﬁcally for each case under study, and plasma processing of MSW is an emerging technology. With some diligence, a viable business plan can be developed from the consideration of the many factors inﬂuencing the economics associated with a speciﬁc site selection and surrounding community. Now that the key process concepts and process economics are presented in Fig. 5.3, a discussion will follow about more details of processing the crude syngas from the gasiﬁer. Raw syngas exiting the gasiﬁer is typically cooled in a ﬁre-tube boiler from high gasiﬁcation temperature to about 700 F. Any char of ﬂy ash produced from the ﬁnal zone of the gasiﬁer and entrained with the crude syngas stream is removed by a

REFERENCES

47

downstream cyclone and candle ﬁlter particulate control devices and returned to the gasiﬁer. The candle ﬁlter is composed of ceramic candle ﬁlter elements and cleaned by the commonly accepted back-pulsing concept with syngas. The raw syngas exits at 700 F. The raw syngas introduced into the ﬁre-tube syngas cooler produces steam for use in a turbine that becomes part of the heat recovery system. Raw syngas then enters a scrubber at 700 F for removing any remaining particulates and trace components. Next, the syngas stream is sent to a hydrolysis reactor whereby the carbonyl sulﬁde (COS) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are converted to hydrogen sulﬁde (H2S). The syngas stream then is processed by a mercury removal system such as by Eastman chemical consisting of a packed bed of a special activated carbon that removes the mercury, arsenic, and trace materials. Following the mercury removal system, a Selexol unit can be used to remove H2S and CO2 from the cool syngas. A polishing unit of zinc oxide removes any residual H2S and achieves a high-purity syngas stream. As discussed, the process unit operations are presented to give a conceptual idea of the process equipment and technology currently available to clean up a raw syngas from a gasiﬁer. Many existing technologies and engineering experiences are available for design and further development for the cleanup of raw syngas from gasiﬁers. It is just important to become familiar with these technologies and to form the proper team whereby such important technologies are integrated properly into the waste-to-energy gasiﬁcation process.16 Final selection of the gas cleanup process parameters will depend on the wastes selected for feedstock to the gasiﬁcation process.

REFERENCES 1. Circeo, L.J., Engineering and Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology, Technological Forum, Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services Center, Marion, Iowa, November 22, 2005. 2. Circeo, L.J., “Engineering & Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology,” Presentation, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 2005. 3. Vera, R., “Organic Waste, Gasiﬁcation and Cogeneration,” Presentation, Trinity Plasma Technology, Technologies International Corporation, Trinity Consultants, Inc., 2005. 4. Recovered Energy, Inc., Pocatello, Idaho, www.recoveredenergy.com, “Process Flow Diagram,” MSW into energy and useable by-products. 5. “Summary Report: Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies,” Prepared for: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, 419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, September 2005. 6. Lee, C.C., “Plasma System,” Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1989, p. 8.169. 7. Circeo, L.J., Private Communication, April 4, 2006 and December 22, 2006.

48

PLASMA ECONOMICS: GARBAGE/WASTES TO POWER ETHANOL PLANTS

8. Iowa Corn Organization, www.iowacorn.org and Iowa Corn Promotion Board/Iowa Corn Growers Association, December 2006. 9. Circeo, L.J. and Smith, M.S., “Plasma Processing of MSW at Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Presentation, Health and Environmental Systems Laboratory, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2005. 10. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 11. Ulrich, K., Private Communication, ICM, Inc., December 21, 2006. 12. American Coalition for Ethanol, www.ethanol.org, averages provided by Axis Petroleum, Sate Average Ethanol Rack Prices, Iowa, Tuesday, December 19, 2006. 13. “Expert Touts Plasma Torch,” The Gazette, November 22, 2005. 14. “Plasma arc Technology may help Linn Garbage Woes,” The Gazette, November 20, 2005. 15. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. 16. DOE/NETL-2007/1260, Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer–Tropsch Liquids Facility, Final Report for Subtask 41817.401.01.08.001, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), April 9, 2007.

CHAPTER 6

From Curbside to Landﬁll: Cash Flows as a Revenue Source for Waste Solids-to-Energy Management

Background: Nearly every community in the United States has municipal solid wastes (MSW) referred to by the public as “garbage or trash” generated by households. This MSW or garbage is typically picked up at the “curbside” by garbage trucks and usually hauled to local landﬁll(s) for disposal. This process of garbage collection from local residences and delivery to the front gate of the landﬁll for disposal will be referred to as “from curbside to landﬁll.” This article presents the “preliminary cash ﬂow” associated with “from curbside to landﬁll.” The public should be aware of the “cash ﬂow/economics” associated with garbage collection “from curbside to landﬁll” and how this money can beneﬁt the community as a resource for further downstream processing of MSW/garbage and possible elimination of the downstream landﬁll with new technology. The process of collecting “garbage or trash” (municipal solid waste, MSW) is straightforward and identiﬁed by the following steps referred to as “from curbside to landﬁll:” As presented in Fig. 6.1, garbage/trash/MSW is placed at the curbside by residential customers for pickup by the garbage truck/trash hauler. A fee is charged from each customer for this curbside pickup. Next, once the garbage truck is ﬁlled, typically the truck delivers the trash to the landﬁll for disposal at a cost known as the “tipping fee.” Finally, the empty truck returns and continues garbage collection by repeating these steps until the days scheduled route has been completed. Our objective is to quantify the cash ﬂows associated with the process of garbage collection from “curbside to landﬁll.” “Predictive cash ﬂows” can be quantiﬁed by the use of parameters for revenues and expenditures as shown in the following example for two typical towns in Iowa using a common landﬁll. This predictive cash ﬂow analysis from “curbside to landﬁll” can be understood by following an example completed for the cities of Marion, Iowa and Cedar Rapids, Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

49

50

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

From Curbside Pickup (Garbage/Trash) to Landfill, Cash Flows (Garbage/Trash/ Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Curbside of Residential Customers $-Revenues $-Expenditures

FIGURE 6.1

Garbage Truck Service for Curbside Pickup $-Revenues $-Expenditures

Landfill Local Solid Waste Agency $-Cost "Tipping Fee"

Curbside Pickup to Landﬁll, Garbage/Trash Flows.

Iowa associated with the landﬁll of the Cedar Rapids Linn County Solid Waste Agency in Marion, Iowa and with the parameters in Table 6.1. Cash ﬂows computed for this example with regard to the two cities in Iowa, Cedar Rapids and Marion, are Cedar Rapids, IA I. Residential curbside pickup cash ﬂow

$2,981,070.06/year Total combined cash ﬂow ¼ $3,792,948.76/year

Marion, IA $811,878.70/year

Note: Total combined cash ﬂow is “net annual revenue” ¼ [total revenues–total expenditures] II. Waste to landﬁll

78.64 tons/collection day Total combined waste, 85.41 tons/day waste to landﬁll (per collection day)

6.77 tons/collection day

III. “Net annual revenue” ¼ [total revenues–total expenditures] ¼ $170.81/ton waste, collected at curbside

A preliminary cash ﬂow analysis of “from curbside to landﬁll” has established a positive net annual revenue (cash ﬂow) of $3,792,948.76/year. This cash ﬂow is generated just by collecting and delivering residential solid waste to the landﬁll even after subtracting out the landﬁll tipping fee of $35/ton waste. Cash ﬂow analysis from curbside to landﬁll was determined using the computer spreadsheet in Table 6.2 (Cash Flow Analysis from Residential Curbside (Waste Pickup) to Landﬁll). If this cash ﬂow was utilized toward ﬁnancing a process for management of MSW to the landﬁll, what impact could it have? If a process such as Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation is considered, the economics for a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility with a capacity of 500 tons/day MSW are as follows.4–7 Capital investment for a 500 tpd MSW Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility is around $101,584,000.00. Bond payment for the capital cost at 6% interest for 20-year ﬁnancing is $8,789,511.29/year. If the Plasma Arc facility was used to produce electricity and sell it to the grid at 4.50¢/kWh, receive a revenue of $35.00/ton MSW processed (tipping fee), and receive $15.00/ton for the vitriﬁed slag by-product as road material, the net revenue before taxes would be $5,235,041.27/year. Combined

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

TABLE 6.1 Flows

51

Economic Parameters as Input to Obtain Curbside to Landﬁll Cash

Parameter Revenues a. Billings for curbside pickup1,2 Number residences, solid waste service Solid waste fee per residence Billings Number residences, recycling service Recycling fee Billings b. Additional collection, garbage tags1,2 Number tags sold Selling price of tags

Cedar Rapids

Marion

45,000 $0.3541/day 365 days/year 45,000 $0.1013/day 365/year

9,475 $5.50/month 12 months/year 9,475 $5.50/month 12 months/year

257,000/year $1.25/tag

80,000/year $1.25/tag

Expenditures Curbside pickup a. Time at curbside for solid waste pickup 0.509 minutes b. Operating, hours per day for solid waste 8.00 hours/day pickup c. Operating, days per week for solids waste 5.00 days/week pickup d. Capital cost of a new truck, $180,000.00 rear loading refuse truck e. Annual cost of capital for refuse $35,095.37/yr truck at 5%, 6 years f. Number of employees per Three persons/ refuse truck truck g. Cost per employee per year, $60,649.10 refuse truck operation1 h. Time at curbside for recycling pickup 0.408 minutes i. Operating, hours per day for 8.00 hours/day recycling pickup j. Operating, days per week for 5.00 days/week recycling pickup k. Capital cost of a new truck, $140,000.00 recycling truck l. Annual cost of capital for recycling $27,296.40/yr truck at 5%, 6 years m. Number of employees per recycling truck Two persons/truck n. Cost per employee per year, recycling $60,649.10 truck operation1 o. Additional staff required for overall operations1 Number of additional persons on payroll 8.00/year Cost per employee per year, overall $60,649.10 operations p. Percentage of annual recycling 10.00% revenues as a loss

0.208 minutes 8.00 hours/day 5.00 days/week $180,000.00 $35,095.27/yr Three persons/ truck $60,649.10 0.163 minutes 8.00 hours/day 5.00 days/week $140,000.00 $27,296.40/yr Two persons/truck $60,649.10

0.00/year $0.00 0.00% (continued)

52

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

TABLE 6.1

(Continued)

Parameter Landﬁll disposal q. Tipping fee, $/ton waste solids3 r. Pounds waste per truck (refuse truck)3 s. Pounds recycling material per truck (recycle truck)3 t. Receiving trucks, operation u. Percentage of recyclables picked up but landﬁlled v. Drop-off fee to recycling center2 w. Additional fees2

Cedar Rapids

Marion

$35.00/ton 16,480 lbs/truck 9,420 lbs/truck

$35.00/ton 16,480 lbs/truck 9,420 lbs/truck

5.00 days/week 10.00%

5.00 days/week 0.00%

$0.00/ton $0.00/year

$10.00/ton $179,122.00/year

net cash ﬂow for the Plasma Arc facility and the curbside to landﬁll operations would be $9,027,990.03/year (positive cash ﬂow).7 If clean renewable energy bonds (CREBs) ﬁnancing was used, the bond payment for the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility would be $7,256,509.97/year and a net revenue of $6,768,042.59/year for 14-year ﬁnancing. Thus, the combined revenue for the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility and the curbside to landﬁll operations would be $10,560,991.35/year. It is clear that when the bond for the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility could be paid off in about nine years, the positive cash ﬂow becomes about $18,000,000/year (a “Cash Cow”). The economics here are shown for the two cities in Iowa, Cedar Rapids and Marion, working together with Linn County to provide a ﬁnancially rewarding endeavor for all the people of both the cities and Linn County, Iowa. In addition, the Linn County landﬁll can be essentially eliminated/minimized whereby the negative liability impacts of a local landﬁll are mitigated. The bottom line is that local solid waste/garbage collection and disposal, i.e., the refuse business, can create a positive cash ﬂow for the local community. This positive cash ﬂow can be used to ﬁnance new technology for converting the solid waste/ garbage to energy. In addition, the energy generated could create additional revenue for the community. Also, the generated energy could be used to attract new industry to the area and thus result in the creation of new jobs. Now that cash ﬂows have been presented from curbside-to-landﬁll, fees (tipping fee), regulations, construction, operation, and environmental issues will be discussed associated with landﬁlls. The presentation on landﬁlls will be based upon the standards set forth in theResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subtitle D regulations as well as factual information accumulated over the years. A typical MSW landﬁll that is the depository for the MSW collected from the curbside is shown in Figs. 6.2 and 6.3. In the previous cash ﬂow analysis from curbside-to-landﬁll, a tipping fee of $35.00/ ton was used for the MSW sent to and deposited in the local landﬁll. However, landﬁll fees (tipping fees) can vary considerably from one landﬁll to another. The varying landﬁll tipping fees are illustrated in Table 6.3 for average tipping fees for Wisconsin and neighboring states.10

53

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence Cedar Rapids, IA Solid Waste Service

Recycling Service

1Ra.

1Rb.

Additional Garbage; Tags Sold; Revenue

365

365

Billings Days/year

257,000 Tags sold per year

$1.25 $/Tag

Subtotal Revenue: Sale of Recyclables:

Annual Revenues for Curbside Pickup; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service; TOTAL REVENUES :

Revenue from Selling Recyclable Waste from Curbside

1Rc.

$0.1013

$0.3624

Waste Fee ($/day-residence)

Cedar Rapids, IA

Subtotal Revenue: Solid Waste Service & Recycle Service: Annual Revenue for Curbside Pickup; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service

45,000

45,000

Number of Residences

1RD.

Cedar Rapids, IA

Description

Item

1R. - REVENUES: City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa

I. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS:

Subject:

Cedar Rapids, IA Name I.; For Cash Flow for City or Company or Utility Being Computed Marion, IA Name II.; For Cash Flow for City or Company or Utility Being Computed Cash Flow Analysis from Residential Curbside (Waste Pickup) & Commercial Services & Industrial Waste Services Associated With Landfill, Site #2

11/12/2008

$7,939,522.50

$321,250.00

$2,000.00

$7,616,272.50

$1,663,852.50

$5,952,420.00

Annual ($)

GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA [email protected]

NOTE:

Comments

"CONFIDENTIAL" "PRELIMINARY"

From Curbside to Landﬁll: Cash Flows, Linn County Solid Waste Agency Board, Site #2 Landﬁll, Iowa

Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency Board: Site #2 Landfill

TABLE 6.2

(continued)

Denotes Input Data

54 7.65 Number of trucks for Solid Waste Service (Calculated/Estimated)

1Eg.

1Ef.

Cedar Rapids, IA

Subtotal Expenditures: Solid Waste Service & Recycling Service; Landfill Tipping Fee: /ton Tipping fee at landfill lbs waste/truck (back compacting loaded) of curbsite Solid Waste to landfill tons waste/day curbsite waste to landfill lbs waste/truck (recycling truck) of curbsite Solid Waste tons waste/day curbsite Recycleables picked up days per week trucks operating % of Recycleables that are Picked Up by Recycling trucks but end up in the landfill Site #2 tons waste (Solid Waste + Recyclables) / day [That go to Landfill Site #2] tons waste (Solid Waste + Recyclables) / YEAR [That go to Lanfill Site #2]

Annual Expenditures for Curbside Pickup; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service; TOTAL EXPENDITURES : Cedar Rapids, IA ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services: I. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: Cedar Rapids, IA

Fees Paid to Solid Waste Agency by

$35.00 16,480 78.64 9,420 36.03 5.00 10.00 82.24 21,383

Expenditures for Tipping Fee at Landfill Site #2 in Marion, Iowa

$485,192.80 /year, additional staff on payroll beyond calculated values. $60,649.10 annual cost per each employee 8.00 number of additional personnel on payroll 51.9 Total, number of personnel on payroll for Curbside Garbage and Recycle pickup Subtotal Expenditures: Solid Waste Service & Recycling Service:

1Ed.

Capital cost of a new truck, Recycling truck /year/truck, Capital cost of a new truck at 5% interest for 6 years, two bond payment per year /year, annual Capital cost to purchase new trucks every 6-years /year, annual truck operating costs 2 number of empolyees per truck /year labor costs $60,649.10 annual cost per each employee /year, expenditures for Recycling Service

45,000 residences, NOTE: one pickup per week 7.65 Number of Garbage/Refuse Trucks Needed for Recycling Service: (Calculated/Estimated)

Capital cost of a new truck, rear loading refuse truck /year/truck, Capital cost of a new truck at 5% interest for 6-years, 2-bond payment per year /year, annual Capital cost to purchase new trucks every 6-years /year, annual truck operating costs 3 number of empolyees per truck /year labor costs $60,649.10 annual cost per each employee /year, expenditures for Solid Waste Service

Annual Net Revenue for Solid Waste & Recycle Services Cedar Rapids, IA

$3,117,397.56

Cedar Rapids, IA TOTAL EXPENDITURES; SOLID WASTE & RECYCLE SERVICES

Additional Fees Paid by

Expenditures for Solids Waste Serive & Recycling Service from Landfill Tipping Fees

Expenditures for Solids Waste Servie & Recycling Service Plus Additional Cost of Recycle Center

Loss Encured by Operating the Recycling Center

expenditures for Recycling Service for Pickup at Curbside of Residences

expenditures for Solid Waste Service

$4,822,124.94

$0.00

$748,417.22

$4,073,707.72

$485,192.80

$166,585.25

$1,243,638.69

$2,178,290.98

0.408 minutes, time at curbside for each pickup, Solid Waste (back compacted truck) 8.00 hours per day operating 5.00 days/wk operating

10.00 % of Recycling Revenues per year that End Up as A Loss for the Department beyond the cost to pickup the recycleables at the curbside of residences $166,585.25 per year, Cost for Operating the Rcycling Center beyond the cost to pickup the recycleables at the curbside of residences

$140,000.00 $27,296.40 $208,817.46 $106,890.00 $927,931.23 $1,243,638.69

Recycling Service

$180,000.00 $35,095.37 $334,941.44 $106,890.00 $1,736,459.54 $2,178,290.98

9.54 Number of trucks for Solid Waste Service (Calculated/Estimated) 0.509 minutes, time at curbside for each pickup, Solid Waste (back compacted truck) 8.00 hours per day operating 5.00 days/wk operating

45,000 residences, NOTE: one pickup per week 9.54 Number of Garbage/Refuse Trucks Needed for Solid Waste Service

No. Residences

1Ec.

1Eb.

1Ea.

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence (by Recyclables Truck hauling to recycling center) Cedar Rapids, IA Solid Waste Service

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence (by Solid Waste Back Compacted Trucks hauling directly to landfill) Cedar Rapids, IA

1E. - EXPENDITURES: Cedar Rapids, IA Item

TABLE 6.2 (Continued)

55

$5.50

$5.50

12

12

80,000 Tags sold per year

$1.25 $/Tag

Subtotal Revenue: Solid Waste Service & Recycle Service: Annual Revenue for Curbside Pickup; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service Marion, IA Subtotal Revenue: Sale of Recyclables:

9,475

9,475

Solid Waste No. Billings Fee Months/year ($/month-residence)

Marion, IA

Annual Revenues for Curbside Pickup; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service; TOTAL REVENUES :

Additional Garbage; Tags Sold; Revenue

2Rb.

Revenue from Selling Recyclable Waste from Curbside

Recycling Service

2Ra.

2Rc.

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence Marion, IA Solid Waste Service

Number of Residences

2Rd.

Description

Marion, IA

Item

2R. - REVENUES:

II. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS:

$1,352,700.00

$100,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,250,700.00

$625,350.00

$625,350.00

Annual ($)

(continued)

Additional Garbage; Tags Sold; Revenue;

Cardboard Sales

Revenues: Solid Waste Service & Recycle Service:

Comments

56 0.163 minutes, time at curbside for each pickup, Solid Waste (back compacted truck) 8.00 hours per day operating 5.00 days/wk operating

0.64 No. of trucks for Solid Waste Service (Calculated/Estimated)

0.208 minutes, time at curbside for each pickup, Solid Waste (back compacted truck) 8.00 hours per day operating 5.00 days/wk operating

0.82 Number of trucks for Solid Waste Service (Calculated/Estimated)

Marion, IA

3.8 Total, number of personnel on payroll for Curbside Garbage and Recycle pickup

Capital cost of a new truck, Recycling truck /year/truck, Capital cost of a new truck at 5% interest for 6-years, 2-bond payment per year /year, annual Capital cost to purchase new trucks every 6-years /year, annual truck operating costs 2 number of empolyees per truck /year labor costs $60,649.10 annual cost per each employee /year, expenditures for Recycling Service

9,475 residences, NOTE: one pickup per week 0.64 Number of Garbage/Refuse Trucks Needed for Recycling Service: (Calculated/Estimated)

Capital cost of a new truck, rear loading Refuse truck /year/truck, Capital cost of a new truck at 5% interest for 6-years, 2-bond payment per year /year, annual Capital cost to purchase new trucks every 6-years /year, annual truck operating costs 3 number of empolyees per truck /year labor costs $60,649.10 annual cost per each employee /year, expenditures for Solid Waste Service

9,475 residences, NOTE: one pickup per week 0.82 Number of Garbage/Refuse Trucks Needed for Solid Waste Service

Number of Residences

Fees Paid to Solid Waste Agency by

2Ee.

Marion, IA

Subtotal Expenditures: Solid Waste Service & Recycling Service; Landfill Tipping Fee: /ton Tipping fee at landfill lbs waste/truck (back compacting loaded) of curbsite Solid Waste to landfill tons waste/day curbsite waste to landfill lbs waste/truck (recycling truck) of curbsite Solid Waste tons waste/day curbsite Recycleables picked up and sent to Recycling center at Site #2 days per week trucks operating /ton, Drop Off Fee (Transportation) to Recylcing Center at Site #2 Landfill for Recylcing Picked Up at City of Marion,IA % of Recycleables that are Picked Up by Recycling trucks but end up in the landfill Site #2 tons waste (Solid Waste + Recyclables) / day [That go to Landfill Site #2] tons waste (Solid Waste + Recyclables) / YEAR [That go to Lanfill Site #2]

Annual Expenditures for Curbside Pickup; Family Residence; Solid Waste & Recycling Service; TOTAL EXPENDITURES : Marion, IA ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services: II. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: Marion, IA

Expenditures for Tipping Fee at Landfill Site Marion, IA $35.00 16,480 6.77 9,420 3.03 5.00 $10.00 0.00 6.77 1,759

0.00 % of Recycling Revenues per year that End Up as A Loss for the Department beyond the cost to pickup the recycleables at the curbside of residences $0.00 per year, Cost for Operating the Rcycling Center beyond the cost to pickup the recycleables at the curbside of residences Marion, IA Subtotal Expenditures: Solid Waste Service & Recycling Service:

$140,000.00 $27,296.40 $17,565.52 $9,197.07 $78,056.66 $104,819.24

Recycling Service

$180,000.00 $35,095.37 $28,819.15 $9,197.07 $149,409.06 $187,425.27

2Ed.

2Ec.

2Eb.

2Ea.

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence (by Recyclables Truck hauling hauling to recycling center) Marion, IA Solid Waste Service

Monthly Billing for Curbside pickup family residence (by Solid Waste Back Compacted Trucks hauling directly to landfill) Marion, IA

2E. - EXPENDITURES: Marion, IA Item

TABLE 6.2 (Continued)

Annual Net Revenue for Solid Waste & Recycle Services Marion, IA

$811,878.70

Marion, IA TOTAL EXPENDITURES; SOLID WASTE & RECYCLE SERVICES

Additional Fees Paid by

Expenditures for Solids Waste Serive & Recycling Service from Landfill Tipping Fees

Expenditures for Solids Waste Servie & Recycling Service Plus Additional Cost of Recycle Center

Loss Encured by Operating the Recycling Center

expenditures for Recycling Service for Pickup at Curbside of Residences

expenditures for Solid Waste Service

$540,821.30

$179,122.00

$69,454.79

$292,244.51

$0.00

$104,819.24

$187,425.27

57

SUMMARY:

SUMMATION:

1,759.3 tons, collected / year

22,205.8 tons collected / year

Marion, IA

Total $3,929,276.26

$3,929,276.26

Combined Total Cash Flow, Based Upon Net Revenue, from Curbside to Landfill (front gate) per Total Ton collected =

( FROM THIS STUDY )

20,446.5 tons, collected / year

Cedar Rapids, IA

Estimated Collection Tons/Day

COMBINED TOTAL CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL:

Total Solid Waste from: Cedar Rapids, IA And Marion, IA

( FROM THIS STUDY )

$811,878.70

II. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: Marion, IA ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services

COMBINED TOTAL CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL:

$3,117,397.56

I. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: Cedar Rapids, IA ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services

Solid Waste Landfill Site

$3,929,276.26

$176.95

TOTAL

85.41 Tons / Day Waste to Landfill Site per Collection Day (Residential Curbside Garbage & Residential Cubside Recyclables)

6.77 Tons / Day Waste to Landfill Site

per ton waste solilds collected (net cash flow from curbside to landfill per ton waste solids collected

Annual Net Revenue for Services Associated with Landfill Site (this study only) ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services

Annual Net Revenue for Services Associated with Landfill Site (this study only) ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services

Annual Net Revenue for Solid Waste & Recycle Services Marion, IA

78.64 Tons / Day Waste to Landfill Site

Annual Net Revenue for Solid Waste & Recycle Services Cedar Rapids, IA & Marion, IA

Annual Net Revenue for Solid Waste & Recycle Services Cedar Rapids, IA

ANNUAL NET REVENUE = [ TOTAL REVENUES - TOTAL EXPENDITURES ] For Solid Waste & Recycle Services: I & II. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE PICKUP CASH FLOW ANALYSIS: Cedar Rapids, IA & Marion, IA

58

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

FIGURE 6.2

FIGURE 6.3

Haulers Drop Off Trash at Landﬁll.9

Trash Loaded and Compacted into a Landﬁll.9

A study by an Iowa task force reported the landﬁll tipping fees in Iowa for the year 2002. The reported tipping fees for the Iowa landﬁlls are shown in Table 6.4. Note, the range of landﬁll tipping fees varied from $15.00/ton to $60.00/ton for the year 2002.11 As can be seen from Table 6.3, the average tipping fee for the state of Iowa is $37.17/ ton for year 2004. Also shown in Table 6.4 are the Iowa tonnages placed into the respective Iowa landﬁlls for ﬁscal year 2007, which is from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers MSW as characterized TABLE 6.3 Landﬁll Average Tipping Fees for Wisconsin and Neighboring States, Year—2004

Tipping fee, $/ton (average tipping fee) Source: Ref. (10).

Minnesota

Iowa

Wisconsin

Michigan

Illinois

$58.80/ton

$37.17/ton

$36.00/ton

$35.32/ton

$35.88/ton

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

TABLE 6.4 Year 2007

59

Landﬁll Tipping Fees for Iowa, Year 200211 and Tonnages for Fiscal

Adair—Adair County sanitary landﬁll Audubon—Audubon County sanitary landﬁll Black Hawk—Black Hawk County sanitary landﬁll Boone—Boone County sanitary landﬁll Bremer—Bremer County sanitary landﬁll Buena Vista—Buena Vista County sanitary landﬁll Carroll—Carroll County sanitary landﬁll/recycling Cass—Cass County sanitary landﬁll Cerro Gordo—Landﬁll of North Iowa Cherokee—Cherokee County Sanitary Landﬁll Clarke—Clarke County sanitary landﬁll—south side Clinton—Clinton County sanitary landﬁll—East Crawford—Crawford County sanitary landﬁll Dallas—North Dallas County sanitary landﬁll Dallas—South Dallas County sanitary landﬁll Decatur—Wayne-Ringgold-Decatur County sanitary LF Des Moines—Des Moines County sanitary landﬁll Dickinson—Diskinson County sanitary landﬁll Dubuque—Dubuque Metropolitan sanitary LF Fremont—Fremont County sanitary landﬁll Grundy—Grundy County sanitary landﬁll Hamilton—Hamilton County sanitary landﬁll Hardin—Rural Iowa sanitary landﬁll Harrison—Harrison County sanitary landﬁll IDA—IDA County sanitary landﬁll Iowa—Iowa County sanitary landﬁll Jasper—City of Newton sanitary landﬁll Johnson—City of Iowa City sanitary landﬁll Jones—Jones County sanitary landﬁll Keokuk—Southeast multicounty sanitary landﬁll Kossuth—Kossuth County sanitary landﬁll Lee—Great River regional waste authority Linn—Bluestem (Site #1-CR) solid waste agency Linn—Bluestem (Site #2-Marion) solid waste agency Madison—South Central Iowa sanitary landﬁll Mahaska—Mahaska County sanitary landﬁll Marion—South Central Iowa solid waste agency Marshall—Marshall County sanitary landﬁll Mills-Loess hills regional sanitary landﬁll Mitchell—Floyd-Mitchell County sanitary landﬁll Montgomery—Montgomery County sanitary landﬁll Muscatine—Muscatine County sanitary landﬁll

Tipping Fee ($/ton)

Iowa Tonnages Fiscal Year 2007 (tons)

34.00 45.00 25.00 26.00 35.75 37.00 34.75 60.00 25.00 36.00 35.00 44.00 35.00 28.00 36.00 25.50 30.00 37.65 29.73 35.00 45.00 45.00 35.00 35.00 30.00 40.00 34.00 38.50 40.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 35.00 22.50 16.25 22.00 52.00 36.00 28.00 48.70 38.00

6,164.65 3,376.74 137,872.04 54,085.95 14,714.62 8,935.35 36,152.60 8,904.29 95,454.46 16,164.81 10,351.85 16,453.47 12,144.86 19,774.00 23,328.91 9,648.29 59,024.81 56,894.54 98,406.23 7,560.81 6,707.00 14,292.91 23,362.39 9,982.98 3,641.54 10,932.62 24,028.69 124,093.81 12,003.09 26,814.24 16,505.00 57,420.34 14,078.60 165,117.56 32,607.02 75,746.77 61,812.38 33,482.41 99,879.75 28,879.75 16,455.47 35,564.00 (continued)

60

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

TABLE 6.4

(Continued)

Page—Page County sanitary landﬁll Palo Alto—Northern Plains Polk—Metro Park East sanitary landﬁll Appanoose, Rathbun area solid waste comm SAC—SAC County sanitary landﬁll Scott—Scott area sanitary landﬁll Sioux—Northwest Iowa area sanitary landﬁll Tama—Tama County sanitary landﬁll Union—Union County sanitary landﬁll Wapello—Ottumwa-Wapello County sanitary LF Webster—North Central Iowa regional sanitary LF Winnebago—central disposal landﬁll Winneshiek—Winneshiek County sanitary landﬁll Woodbury—City of Sioux City sanitary landﬁll Woodbury—Woodbury County sanitary landﬁll

Tipping Fee ($/ton)

Iowa Tonnages Fiscal Year 2007 (tons)

50.00 17.27 31.00 41.00 30.00 33.00 15.70 30.00 31.00 48.00 15.00 32.25 51.00 24.67 20.00

11,089.12 34,187.47 489,588.61 11,385.20 4,540.76 156,723.94 56,171.63 16,334.17 19,469.49 43,294.00 90,931.50 150,449.94 24,127.72 64,174.59 1,256.48

Source: Ref. (8,11,13).

from sources such as residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial.12 The tonnages reported are the wastes deposited into the respective landﬁlls.13 In comparison to waste generated from the state of Iowa, the volume of New York City (NYC) waste (tons/day) alone is shown in Table 6.5 as 19,870 tons/day or 7,252,550 tons/year. The waste from NYC is transported to other destinations. The top destinations of NYC waste to landﬁlls are shown in Table 6.5. The NYC volume is the tons/day from NYC and can be compared to the total volume (tons/day) deposited into the respective landﬁll as indicated. As can be seen from Table 6.5, many waste-to-energy facilities could be potentially justiﬁed economically from the waste generated from NYC alone.14 Regulations for landﬁlling of MSW were promulgated in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D as mandated by the U.S. Congress. These regulations are based upon the “dry tomb” approach where MSW is landﬁlled into a “dry tomb” or say “entombed” in a plastic sheeting and compacted soil/clay bottom liner in the landﬁll and ﬁnally capped off the top of the landﬁll with a plastic sheeting and compacted soil/clay cover. A leachate collection system is required as well as a landﬁll gas (LFG)-collection system. A groundwater monitoring system is required. These systems are to be funded and maintained for a postclosure period of 30 years as speciﬁed by the Congress in the RCRA Subtitle D MSW landﬁlling regulations.15 Rather than discuss the RCRA Subtitle D regulations for landﬁlls, a clear understanding of these regulations can be found by reviewing an example of a landﬁll design presented by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR),

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

61

TABLE 6.5 The Top Destinations for New York City Waste (Volumes in Tons per Day)—2002 Facility/City/State GROWS Landﬁll/Morrisville/ PA Tullytown Landﬁll Tullytown/ PA Atlantic Waste Disposal Inc. Landﬁll/Waverly/VA American Ref-Fuel/Essex County (Newark) Facility/ Newark/NJ Conestoga/New Morgan Landﬁll/NewMorgan/PA Superior Greentree Landﬁll/ Kersey/PA Alliance Landﬁll/Taylor/PA Modern Landﬁll and recycling/ York/PA Greenridge Reclamation/ Scottdale/PA Shade Landﬁll/Cairnbrook/PA Hyland Landﬁll & Ash Monoﬁll/Belmont/NY Pottstown Landﬁll/Pottstown/ PA Keystone Sanitary Landﬁll/ Dunmore/PA Southern Alleghenies Landﬁll/ Davidsville/PA IESI Blue Ridge Landﬁll (R&A Bender)/Chambersburg/PA City of Leeper/Clarion County Landﬁll/Leeper/PA American Ref-Fuel/Delaware Co. (Chester) WTE/Chester/ PA IESI of Bethlehem Landﬁll/ Bethlehem/PA Warren County District Landﬁll/Oxford/NJ Chrin Sanitary Landﬁll/Easton/ PA Grand Central Sanitary Landﬁll/PenArgyl/PA

NYC volume

Total volume

2,622

10,000

2,122

8,000

1,436

4,000

1,388

2,800

1,270

5,210

1,225

4,240

1,186 1,057

5,500 4,643

Private/Browning-Ferris Ind. Inc./ (AlliedWaste) Private/Superior Services, Inc. (Onyx) Private/Waste Management Inc Private/Republic Services, Inc.

642

2,000

Private/Republic Industries, Inc.

640 638

2,100 850

623

3,500

Private/Waste Management Inc. Private/Casella Waste Systems, Inc. Private/Waste Management Inc.

530

4,340

477

1,500

391

700

388

1,000

Private/Allied Waste Industries Inc.

353

3,071

Public/Delaware County

346

635

Private/IESI Corp.

252

300

Public/Warren County

211

1,200

Private/Chrin Sanitary Landﬁll Inc.

191

2,750

Private/Waste Management, Inc.

Ownership/Owner Entity Private/Waste Management Inc./ Pennsylvania Private/Waste Management Inc./ Pennsylvania Private/Atlantic Waste Disposal Inc./(Waste Mgmt.) Public/American Ref-Fuel Company

Private/Keystone Sanitary Landﬁll Inc. Private/Waste Management Inc. Private/IESI Corp.

(continued)

62

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

TABLE 6.5

(Continued)

Facility/City/State

NYC volume

Total volume

Ownership/Owner Entity

Cumberland County Landﬁll/ Shippensburg/PA American Ref-Fuel/ Hempstead/WTE Facility/ Westbury/NY Pine Grove Landﬁll/PineGrove/ PA Carbon Limestone Sanitary Landﬁll/Lowellville/OH Laurel Highlands Landﬁll/ Vintondale/PA Lakeview Landﬁll/Erie/PA Clinton County Landﬁll (Wayne Township)/ McElhattan/PA Westmoreland County Sanitary Landﬁll/Monessen/PA Imperial Landﬁll/Imperial/PA

162

995

154

2,505

Private/American Ref-fuel Company

152

1,500

Private/Waste Management Inc.

150

3,800

149

1,475

Private/Browning-Ferris Ind. Inc. (Allied Waste) Private/Waste Management Inc.

147 146

2,500 500

Private/Waste Management Inc. Public/Clinton County

138

550

125

2,700

McKean County/Kness Landﬁll/Mount Jewett/PA Mountain View Reclamation Landﬁll/Greencastle/PA Westchester RESCO/Peekskill/ NY Kelly Run Sanitary Landﬁll/ Elizabeth/PA Charles City Landﬁll/Charles City/VA Pioneer Crossing Landﬁll/ Birdsboro/PA Arden Landﬁll/Washington/PA Commonwealth Environmental Systems andﬁll/Hegins/PA Maplewood Recycling and Disposal Facility/Amelia/VA Totals by Ownership Ownership

107

400

90

1,453

Private/Waste Management Inc.

83

2,200

Private/Waste Management Inc.

73

700

71

3,000

52

700

37 15

2,400 2,000

15

2,500

Private Public Source: Ref. (14).

Count

36 6

Volume From NYC 17,486 2,384

Private/Community Refuse Inc.

Public/Westmoreland County Private/Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. Public/McKean County

Private/Kelly Run Sanitation Inc. Private/Waste Management Inc. Private/J P Mascaro & Sons Inc. Private/Waste Management Inc. Private/Commonwealth Environmental Systems LP Private/Waste Management Inc.

Total Daily Volume

98,996 7,621

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

63

which complies with RCRA Subtitle D regulations. Shaw Environmental, Inc. developed a cost model with these general landﬁll assumptions:16 . .

. . .

. . . .

Total landﬁll footprint ¼ 7.5 acres. Total landﬁll capacity ¼ 429,590 cubic yards, inclusive of daily and intermediate cover. This corresponds to approximately 246,480 tons of capacity for waste, assuming a 15% daily/intermediate cover and a compacted waste density of 1,350 pounds per cubic yard. Daily waste acceptance of 29 tons per day. This corresponds with the current average waste acceptance for unlined facilities. Projected operating life of the landﬁll is 30 years. Cell construction size will be 0.65 acres, representing the smallest practical construction size. New cells will be constructed approximately every 2.6 years based on the assumed waste acceptance rate. Total cell capacity ¼ 21,360 tons of waste, calculated by dividing the total landﬁll capacity by the relative cell area. Leachate is generated at a rate of 400 gallons per acre per day (per Bonaparte and Othman, Geotechnical News, March 1995). Landﬁlls that construct composite liners must build composite ﬁnal cover systems. 15% contingency costs.

A schematic representation of a single composite liner landﬁll containment system with the general landﬁll assumptions presented above is shown as Fig. 6.4. In Fig. 6.4, the landﬁll is constructed from some parcel of land by excavating a subgrade. Then, a clay liner is placed over the subgrade and compacted. Over the clay liner is immediately laid a ﬂexible membrane liner (FML) of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic sheeting. A leachate collection pipe system consisting of

FIGURE 6.4

Single Composite Liner Landﬁll Containment System.15

64

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

leachate collection pipes, leachate collection layer, and ﬁlter layer is installed. A monitoring well is installed for monitoring and detection of any pollution of groundwater from the landﬁll. Waste is then placed into the constructed landﬁll until that portion of the constructed site is full. Then the landﬁll is capped, and a gas vent is installed for collection of LFG. Fill is placed over the waste and a liner is placed on top of the ﬁll. A drainage layer is placed over the liner followed by top soil and vegetation. The following discussion presents the construction costs for developing a landﬁll cell for the deposition of waste. The landﬁll cell comprises the single composite liner landﬁll containment system as shown in Fig. 6.4. For a single composite liner, the construction costs for a 0.65-acre cell are shown in Table 6.6. The composite cover construction costs are also shown in Table 6.6.16 By reviewing the possible total construction costs for the landﬁll at between $12.21/ton waste to 14.68/ton waste, these cost estimates indicate how subtitle D cell construction may impact current tipping fees. As shown in Table 6.3, the average tipping fee for the state of Iowa is $37.17/ton for year 2004. Now that there is an understanding of a landﬁll construction meeting the regulations of the RCRA, Subtitle D for sanitary landﬁlls, the technology, operation and details of Subtitle D landﬁlling of MSW will be presented.15,17 The evolution of technology for landﬁlling of solid wastes was based upon a low-cost approach whereby urban areas deposited waste solids into nearby wetlands and low-value land for creation of a landﬁll. This approach to landﬁlling obviously had many ﬂaws such as odor, attraction of vermin, rodents, ﬂies, birds, etc. These shortcomings lead to having the daily deposited wastes being covered each day by a layer of soil. The concept that these poorly conceived waste depositories (landﬁlls) could cause TABLE 6.6 Cell)

Single Composite Cell Costs and Final Cover Costs (0.65 acre Landﬁll

Construction Costs/ton Waste Excavation and subgrade Groundwater diversion layer Liner system Leachate collection system Miscellaneous Construction quality assurance Laboratory testing Gas well installation Total direct Contingency (15%) Total Final cover construction cost Grand total

Low Estimate $2.35/ton $0.82/ton $1.26/ton $2.15/ton $0.64/ton $0.46/ton $0.04/ton $0.08/ton $7.80/ton $1.17/ton $8.97/ton $3.24/ton $12.21/ton

waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste waste

High Estimate $3.77/ton waste $0.83/ton waste $1.42/ton waste $2.22/ton waste $0.76/ton waste $0.46/ton waste $0.06/ton waste $0.08/ton waste $9.60/ton waste $1.44/ton waste $11.04/ton waste $3.64/ton waste $14.68/ton waste

Source: Ref. (16). Note: Possible grand total construction costs with these summary speciﬁcations: 0.65 acre cell; 21,360 tons waste/cell; single composite liner; composite cover; and daily waste acceptance of 29 tons/day. Landﬁll to meet Resource Conservations and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle D regulations.16

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

65

groundwater pollution or the gas generated by the landﬁlls could be a threat to the public’s health, where not considered seriously. Then in the 1980s, the U.S. EPA and state regulatory agencies adopted the “dry tomb” approach for the design and operation of landﬁlls.15,16 The “dry tomb” approach to landﬁlling for the management of municipal and industrial solid waste is based upon the concept: isolate the waste in a landﬁll from water that generates the leachate (garbage juice), to prevent groundwater pollution. Some theorize that groundwater pollution is principally caused by the leachate formed from the solid waste and that constituents of the leachate (garbage juice) enter groundwater causing it to be polluted. Then, this can lead one to a conclusion that if water is prevented from contacting solid waste, leachate is not formed and pollution of groundwater is prevented. Thus, the design, construction, and operation of sanitary landﬁlls as promulgated by governmental agencies adopted the “single composite liner landﬁll containment system” as illustrated in Fig. 6.4. This single composite liner approach to landﬁlling creates a situation whereby the wastes are isolated from the environment by compacted soil and a plastic sheeting creating the “lined tomb.”15–17 The dry tomb landﬁlling approach is based upon using a thin plastic sheeting HDPE layer over a compacted soil/clay layer to form a “composite liner.” Experience has shown that compacted clay layer alone will not prevent groundwater pollution. The plastic sheeting is thin and speciﬁed to be at least 60 mill thickness of HDPE. 60 mill thickness is less than 1/16th of an inch, i.e., 0.96 (96%) of 1/16”. The composite liner is created by placing the HDPE sheeting immediately upon the compacted soil/clay layer. Small holes in the HDPE plastic liner can lead to high leakage as stated. Note, the promulgated Subtitle D regulations are for a single composite liner and equivalent landﬁll cover as shown in Fig. 6.4. As mentioned, this approach was understood in the 1990s that it could only delay or postpone when groundwater pollution occurs by landﬁll leachate. Also, plastic sheeting of HDPE liner can allow dilute solutions of organic solvents to permeate through a liner with no holes.15 The next issue becomes the 30-year funding period for postclosure monitoring and maintenance as proposed by RCRA Subtitle D MSW landﬁlling regulations. This issue of postclosure of a landﬁll and the proper time, for monitoring and maintenance of the landﬁll to prevent pollution of groundwater and protect public safety, is not well understood. Is 30years enough? For example, it is reported that landﬁlls developed in the Roman Empire about 2,000 years ago continue to produce leachate.15 One could conclude that a better design for landﬁlling of MSW is needed and or a technology for eliminating landﬁlls. One key to the prevention of groundwater pollution is the collection of leachate from the landﬁll and removing it. Thus, a leachate collection and removal system is important for the prevention of groundwater pollution. Current leachate collection systems consist of a gravel or porous medium above the plastic liner to allow for the leachate to ﬂow to the top of the HDPE liner. Once the leachate reaches the sloped liner, it is supposed to ﬂow across the liner to collection pipes where the leachate is collected in a sump and pumped (removed) from the landﬁll. The issues here are minimization of the liquid (leachate) buildup on the liner due to many factors such as

66

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

FIGURE 6.5

Double Composite Liner Landﬁll Containment System.15

plugging, biological growth, chemical precipitates, and solid particulate ﬁnes, which all contribute to buildup of leachate upon the top of the liner and potential leakage through the liner. Currently, a number of states, such as Michigan, require double composite liners for MSW landﬁlls. These liner systems are similar to those required for hazardous waste landﬁlls. A schematic of a double composite liner landﬁll containment system is shown in Fig. 6.5.15 Such containment systems with two composite liners are required to have a leak-detection system between the two liners so as to determine when the upper composite liner has failed. Other issues on landﬁlls are LFG and airborne emissions. Landﬁlls contain organics that are converted to methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) by bacteria. The CH4 and CO2 gaseous mixture produced is called LFG. Basically, landﬁll developers wish to control the concentration of CH4 below 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for CH4 at landﬁll property boundary. The rate of LFG generation is dependent upon the moisture content of the wastes and prevention of water from entering the landﬁll from upper areas such as the cover. The more the moisture level, the greater the rate of LFG generation. LFG components can be malodorous compounds. MSW landﬁlls are notorious for creating odor problems for miles around the landﬁll. Conditions favorable for the production of LFG are: sufﬁcient moisture content, proper nutrients, absence of oxygen and toxics, relatively neutral pH ranging from 6.7 to 7.2, alkalinity greater than 200 mg/L in the form of calcium carbonate, volatile acids less than 3000 mg/L in the form of acetic acid, and internal temperature between 86 and 131oF. The major constituents of LFG are: CH4 (45–60% by volume), CO2 (40–60% by volume), nitrogen (2–5% by volume), oxygen (0.1–1.0% by volume), ammonia (NH3) (0.1–1.0% by volume), and hydrogen (0–0.2% by volume). LFG compositions of trace gases of less than 0.6% by volume are: odor-causing compounds, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, aliphatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. LFG yields can be 3–90 L/kg of

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

67

dry solid waste (MSW). Estimates of LFG production rates are: (a) rapid degradation conditions, 3–7 years (4–10 L/kg/year); (b) moderate degradation conditions, 10–20 years (1.5–3 L/kg/year); and (c) slow degradation conditions, 20–40 years (0.7–1.5 L/kg/year), whereby kg is mass of MSW dry solids.18 Landﬁlls have dust emissions and can impact adjacent properties. It is a good practice to prevent dust from a landﬁll from falling on adjacent properties. Dust can contain compounds that could affect the health of the public. Stormwater runoff from a landﬁll can have adverse affects on the water quality of receiving waters of the runoff especially if any of the receiving waters are used for domestic water supplies and support aquatic life. Also, runoff from a landﬁll can contain pollutants that can be harmful to the public health. Stormwater runoff from landﬁlls is polluted with wastes, chemicals, and pathogens, and thus the stormwater runoff must be controlled from the landﬁll, forever.15 To those who want to pursue many details about regulations on construction, operation, and managing a sanitary landﬁll for MSW based upon minimum standards pursuant to the RCRA for all municipal solid waste landﬁll (MSWLF) units under the Clean Water Act for MSWLFs that are used to dispose of sewage sludge, the following are excerpts from Chapter 113, Sanitary Landﬁlls for MSW: Groundwater Protection Systems for the Disposal of Nonhazardous Wastes.17 567—113.7(455B) MSWLF unit design and construction standards. All MSWLF units shall be designed and constructed in accordance with this rule. 113.7(1) Predesign meeting with the department. A potential applicant for a new MSWLF unit may schedule a predesign meeting with the department’s landﬁll permitting staff prior to beginning work on the plans and speciﬁcations of a modiﬁed or new MSWLF. The purpose of this meeting is to help minimize the need for revisions upon submittal of the ofﬁcial designs and speciﬁcations. 113.7(2) Plans and speciﬁcations. a. Unless otherwise requested by the department, one copy of plans, speciﬁcations and supporting documents shall be sent to the department for review. Upon written department approval, the documents shall be submitted in triplicate to the department for proper distribution. b. All new MSWLF units shall be constructed in compliance with the rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Previous department approval of plans and speciﬁcations for MSWLF units not yet constructed shall be superseded by the promulgation of new rules and regulations, after which plans and speciﬁcations shall be resubmitted to the department for approval prior to construction and operation. 113.7(3) General site design and construction requirements. An MSWLF shall have the following: a. All-weather access roads to the facility. b. A perimeter fence with a lockable gate(s) to help prevent unauthorized access. c. A sign at the entrance to the facility specifying: (1) Name and permit number of the facility. (2) Days and hours that the facility is open to the public or a statement that the facility is not open to the public.

68

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(3) A general list of materials that are not accepted. (4) Telephone number of the ofﬁcial responsible for operation of the facility and the emergency contact person(s). d. All-weather access roads within the facility. e. Signs or pavement markings clearly indicating safe and proper on-site trafﬁc patterns. f. Adequate queuing distance for vehicles entering and exiting the property. g. A scale certiﬁed by the Iowa department of agriculture and land stewardship. 113.7(4) MSWLF unit subgrade. The subgrade for a new MSWLF unit shall be constructed as follows: a. All trees, stumps, roots, boulders, debris, and other material capable of deteriorating in situ material strength or of creating a preferential pathway for contaminants shall be completely removed or sealed off prior to construction of the MSWLF unit. b. The material beneath the MSWLF unit shall have sufﬁcient strength to support the weight of the unit during all phases of construction and operation. The loads and loading rate shall not cause or contribute to failure of the liner and leachate collection system. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.17 c. The total settlement or swell of the MSWLF unit’s subgrade shall not cause or contribute to failure of the liner and leachate collection system. d. If the in situ material of the MSWLF unit’s subgrade cannot meet the requirements of paragraphs 113.7(4)“b” and 113.7(4)“c,” then such material shall be removed and replaced with material capable of compliance. e. The subgrade of an MSWLF unit shall be constructed and graded to provide a smooth working surface on which to construct the liner. f. The subgrade of an MSWLF unit shall not be constructed in or with frozen soil. 113.7(5) MSWLF unit liners and leachate collection systems. The liner and leachate collection system for a new MSWLF unit shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of this subrule. All active portions must have a composite liner or an alternative liner approved by the department. An MSWLF unit must have a functioning leachate collection system during its active life. a. Liner systems. An MSWLF unit shall have a liner system that complies with either the composite liner requirements of subparagraph 113.7(5)“a”(1) or an alternative liner system that complies with the requirements of subparagraph 113.7(5)“a”(2). Liners utilizing compacted soil must place the compacted soil in lifts no thicker than 8 inches after compaction. (1) Composite liner systems. 1. A composite liner consists of two components, an upper ﬂexible membrane liner (FML) and a lower compacted soil liner. 2. The upper component must consist of a minimum 30-mil ﬂexible membrane liner (FML). FML components consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) shall be at least 60 mil thick. The FML component must be installed in direct and uniform contact with the lower compacted soil component. 3. The lower component must consist of at least a 2-foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 107 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The compacted soil must be placed in lifts no thicker than 8 inches after compaction.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

69

4. The composite liner must be adequately sloped toward the leachate collection pipes to provide drainage of leachate. Unless alternative design requirements to this performance standard are approved as part of the permit under subrule 113.2(11) (relating to equivalency review procedure), the leachate collection system shall have a slope greater than or equal to 2 percent and not exceeding 33 percent. (2) Alternative liner systems. 1. The design must ensure that the concentration values listed in Table I of rule 113.7(455B) will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance, as speciﬁed pursuant to numbered paragraph 113.7(5)“a”(2)“2.” Alternative liners utilizing compacted soil must place the compacted soil in lifts no thicker than 8 inches. 2. The relevant point of compliance speciﬁed by the department must be within 50 feet of the planned liner or waste boundary, unless site conditions dictate otherwise, downgradient of the facility with respect to the hydrologic unit being monitored in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(2)“a”(2), and located on land owned by the owner of the MSWLF unit. The relevant point of compliance speciﬁed by the department shall be at least 50 feet from the property line of the facility. 3. When approving an alternative liner design, the department shall consider at least the following factors: . The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land. . The climatic factors of the area. . The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate. . The sensitivities and limitations of the modeling demonstrating the applicable point of compliance. . Practicable capability of the owner or operator. Ch 113, p.18 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 4. The alternative liner must be adequately sloped toward the leachate collection pipes to provide drainage of leachate. Unless alternative design requirements to this performance standard are approved as part of the permit under subrule 113.2(11) (relating to equivalency review procedure), the leachate collection system shall have a slope greater than or equal to 2 percent and not exceeding 33 percent. Table I Chemical Arsenic Barium Benzene Cadmium Carbon tetrachloride Chromium (hexavalent) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene Endrin Fluoride Lindane Lead

MCL (mg/l) 0.01 1.0 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.05 0.1 0.075 0.005 0.007 0.0002 4.0 0.004 0.05 (continued)

70

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

Table I (Continued) Chemical Mercury Methoxychlor Nitrate Selenium Silver Toxaphene 1,1,1-Trichloromethane Trichloroethylene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid Vinyl chloride

MCL (mg/l) 0.002 0.1 10.0 0.01 0.05 0.005 0.2 0.005 0.01 0.002

b. Leachate collection system. All MSWLF units shall have a leachate collection system that complies with the following requirements: (1) The leachate collection system shall be designed and constructed to function for the entire active life of the facility and the postclosure period. (2) The leachate collection system shall be of a structural strength capable of supporting waste and equipment loads throughout the active life of the facility and the postclosure period. (3) The leachate collection system shall be designed and constructed to minimize leachate head over the liner at all times. An MSWLF unit shall have a leachate collection system that maintains less than a 30-centimeter (i.e., 12-inch) depth of leachate over the liner. The leachate collection system shall have a method for accurately measuring the leachate head on the liner at the system’s lowest point(s) within the MSWLF unit (e.g., sumps). Furthermore, an additional measuring device shall be installed to measure leachate directly on the liner in the least conductive drainage material outside of the sump and collection trench. Leachate head measurements from cleanout lines or manholes are not acceptable for the second measurement. All such measurement devices shall be in place before waste is placed in the MSWLF unit. (4) If the leachate collection system is not designed and constructed factoring in leachate recirculation or bioreactor operations, the department may prohibit such activities within the MSWLF unit. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.19 (5) The collection pipes shall be of a length and cross-sectional area that allow for cleaning and inspection through the entire length of all collection pipes at least once every three years. The collection pipes shall not be designed or constructed with sharp bends that prevent cleaning or inspection along any section of the collection pipe or that may cause the collection pipe to be damaged during cleaning or inspection. (6) Leachate collection system designs shall attempt to minimize the potential for clogging due to mass loading. (7) Unless alternative design requirements are approved as part of the permit under subrule

113.2(11) (relating to equivalency review procedure), the following design requirements shall apply: 1. A geotextile cushion over the ﬂexible membrane liner (FML), if the liner utilizes an FML and granular drainage media. A geotextile cushion is not required if the granular drainage media is well rounded and less than 3/8 inch in diameter. The geotextile’s mass shall be determined based on the allowable pressure on the geomembrane.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

71

2. Collection pipe(s) at least 4 inches in diameter at the base of the liner slope(s), surrounded by the high hydraulic-conductivity material listed in numbered paragraph 113.7(5)“b”(7)“3” below. The collection pipe shall have slots or holes large enough to minimize the potential for clogging from ﬁnes conveyed by incoming leachate. 3. One of the following high hydraulic-conductivity materials: . High hydraulic-conductivity material (e.g., gravel) of uniform size and a ﬁnes content of no more than 5 percent by weight passing a #200 sieve. The high hydraulic-conductivity material shall be at least 12 inches in depth and have a hydraulic conductivity of at least 1 102 cm/sec; or . A geosynthetic drainage media (e.g., geonet). The transmissivity of geonets shall be tested with method ASTM D4716, or an equivalent test method, to demonstrate that the design transmissivity will be maintained for the design period of the facility. The testing for the geonet in the liner system shall be conducted using actual boundary material intended for the geonet at the maximum design normal load for the MSWLF unit, and at the design load expected from one lift of waste. At the maximum design normal load, testing shall be conducted for a minimum period of 100 hours unless data equivalent of the 100-hour period is provided, in which case the test shall be conducted for a minimum period of one hour. In the case of the design load from one lift of waste, the minimum period shall be one hour. For geonets used in ﬁnal covers, only one test shall be conducted for a minimum period of one hour using the expected maximum design normal load from the cover soils and the actual boundary materials intended for the geonet. A granular layer at least 12 inches thick with a hydraulic conductivity of at least 1 103 cm/sec shall be placed above the geosynthetic drainage material that readily transmits leachate and provides separation between the waste and liner. (8) Manholes within the MSWLF unit shall be designed to minimize the potential for stressing or penetrating the liner due to friction on the manhole exterior from waste settlement. (9) The leachate drainage and collection system within the MSWLF unit shall not be used for the purpose of storing leachate. If leachate is to be stored, it shall be stored in designated storage structures outside of the MSWLF unit. (10) All of the facility’s leachate storage and management structures outside of the MSWLF unit (e.g., tanks, holding ponds, pipes, sumps, manholes, lift stations) and operations shall have containment structures or countermeasures adequate to prevent seepage to groundwater or surface water. The containment structures and countermeasures for leachate storage shall be at least as protective of groundwater at the liner of the MSWLF unit on a performance basis. Ch 113, p.20 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (11) Unless alternative design requirements are approved as part of the permit under subrule 113.2(11) (relating to equivalency review procedure), the leachate storage structures shall be able to store at least 7 days of accumulated leachate at the maximum generation rate used in designing the leachate collection system. Such minimum storage capacity may be constructed in phases over time so long as the 7-day accumulation capacity is maintained. The storage facility shall also have the ability to load tanker trucks in case sanitary sewer service is unavailable for longer than 7 days. (12) The leachate collection system shall be equipped with valves or devices similar in effectiveness so that leachate can be controlled during maintenance. (13) The leachate collection system shall be accessible for maintenance at all times and under all weather conditions. (14) The permit holder shall annually submit a Leachate Control System Performance Evaluation (LCSPE) Report as a supplement to the facility Annual Water Quality Report, as

72

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

deﬁned in subrule 113.10(10). The report shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system in controlling the leachate, leachate head levels and elevations, the volume of leachate collected and transported to the treatment works or discharged under any NPDES permits, records of leachate contaminants testing required by the treatment works, proposed additional leachate control measures, and an implementation schedule in the event that the constructed system is not performing effectively. 113.7(6) Quality control and assurance programs. All MSWLF units shall be constructed under the supervision of a strict quality control and assurance (QC&A) program to ensure that MSWLF units are constructed in accordance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B) and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. At a minimum, such a QC&A program shall consist of the following. a. The owner or operator shall designate a quality control and assurance (QC&A) ofﬁcer. The QC&A ofﬁcer shall be a professional engineer (P.E.) registered in Iowa. The QC&A ofﬁcer shall not be an employee of the facility, the construction company or construction contractor. The owner or operator shall notify the department of the designated QC&A ofﬁcer and provide the department with that person’s contact information. The QC&A ofﬁcer may delegate another person or persons who are not employees of the facility to supervise or implement an aspect of the QC&A program. b. The QC&A ofﬁcer shall document compliance with rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations, for the following aspects of construction: (1) The MSWLF unit’s subgrade. (2) The liner system, as applicable, below: 1. The ﬂexible membrane liner (FML). Destructive testing of the FML shall be kept to side slopes when continuous seams are utilized. Patches over FML destructive testing areas shall be checked with nondestructive methods. 2. The compacted clay component of the liner system. A minimum of ﬁve ﬁeld moisture density tests per 8-inch lift per acre shall be performed to verify that the correct density, as correlated to permeability by a laboratory analysis, has been achieved. Laboratory hydraulic conductivity testing of Shelby tube samples from the constructed soil liner or test pad, or ﬁeld hydraulic conductivity testing of the constructed soil liner or test pad, or other methods approved by the department, shall be utilized as a QC&A test. (3) The leachate collection, conveyance and storage systems. (4) Any other aspect of construction as required by the department. c. A sampling and testing program shall be implemented by the QC&A ofﬁcer as part of the QC&A program. The sampling and testing program shall: (1) Verify full compliance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. (2) Be approved by the department prior to construction of the MSWLF unit. (3) Detail how each stage of construction will be veriﬁed for full compliance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.21 (4) Be based on statistically signiﬁcant sampling techniques and establish criteria for the acceptance or rejection of materials and constructed components of the MSWLF unit. (5) Detail what actions will take place to remedy and verify any material or constructed component that is not in compliance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. d. The QC&A ofﬁcer shall document the QC&A program. Upon completion of the MSWLF unit construction, the QC&A ofﬁcer shall submit a ﬁnal report to the department that veriﬁes

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

73

compliance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. A copy of the ﬁnal report shall also be maintained by the facility in the operating record. At a minimum, the ﬁnal report shall include the following. (1) A title page and index. (2) The name and permit number of the facility. (3) Contact information for the QC&A ofﬁcer and persons delegated by the QC&A ofﬁcer to supervise or implement an aspect of the QC&A program. (4) Contact information for all construction contractors. (5) Copies of daily reports containing the following information. 1. The date. 2. Summary of weather conditions. 3. Summary of locations on the facility where construction was occurring. 4. Summary of equipment, materials and personnel utilized in construction. 5. Summary of meetings held regarding the construction of the MSWLF unit. 6. Summary of construction progress. 7. Photographs of the construction progress, with descriptions of the time, subject matter and location of each photograph. 8. Details of sampling and testing program for that day. At a minimum, this report shall include details of where sampling and testing occurred, the methods utilized, personnel involved and test results. 9. Details of how any material or constructed component that was found not to be in compliance via the sampling and testing program was remedied. (6) A copy of detailed as-built drawings with supporting documentation and photographic evidence.

This copy shall also include a narrative explanation of changes from the original departmentapproved plans and speciﬁcations. (7) A signed and sealed statement by the QC&A ofﬁcer that the MSWLF unit was constructed in accordance with the requirements of rule 113.7(455B), and the approved plans and speciﬁcations. 113.7(7) Vertical and horizontal expansions of MSWLF units. All vertical and horizontal expansions of disposal airspace over existing and new MSWLF units shall comply with the following requirements. a. Horizontal expansions shall, at a minimum, comply with the following requirements: (1) Horizontal expansions are new MSWLF units and, at a minimum, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with subrules 113.7(4), 113.7(5) and 113.7(6). (2) The slope stability of the horizontal expansion between the existing unit and new MSWLF unit shall be analyzed. The interface between two MSWLF units shall not cause a slope failure of either of the MSWLF units. (3) A horizontal expansion may include a vertical elevation increase of an existing MSWLF unit, pursuant to paragraph 113.7(7)“b,” if approved by the department. b. Vertical expansions shall, at a minimum, comply with the following requirements: (1) A vertical expansion of an MSWLF unit shall not be allowed if the MSWLF unit does not have an approved leachate collection system and a composite liner or a leachate collection system and an alternative liner modeled at an approved point of compliance. Ch 113, p.22 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (2) An analysis of the structural impacts of the proposed vertical expansion on the liner and leachate collection system shall be completed. The vertical expansion shall not contribute to the structural failure of the liner and leachate collection system.

74

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(3) An analysis of the impact of the proposed vertical expansion on leachate generation shall be completed. The vertical expansion shall not overload the leachate collection system or contribute to excess head on the liner. (4) An analysis of the effect of the proposed vertical expansion on run-on, runoff and discharges into waters of the state shall be completed. The vertical expansion shall not cause a violation of subrule 113.7(8). (5) The proposed vertical expansion shall be in compliance with the ﬁnal slopes required at closure pursuant to paragraph 113.12(1)“e.” (6) An analysis of the potential impact of the proposed vertical expansion on litter generation shall be completed. Landﬁll management strategies may need to be amended to help prevent increased litter. (7) An analysis of the impact of the proposed vertical expansion on lines-of-sight and any visual buffering utilized by the landﬁll shall be completed. 113.7(8) Run-on and runoff control systems. a. Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must design, construct, and maintain the following: (1) A run-on control system to prevent ﬂow onto the active portion of the landﬁll during the peak discharge from a 25-year storm; (2) A runoff control system from the active portion of the landﬁll to collect and control at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. b. Runoff from the active portion of the MSWLF unit must be handled in accordance with paragraph 113.10(1)“a.” 567—113.8(455B) Operating requirements. The requirements of this rule shall be consolidated in a development and operations plan (DOPs) pursuant to subrule 113.8(4) and the emergency response and remedial action plan (ERRAP) pursuant to subrule 113.8(5), as applicable. 113.8(1) Prohibited operations and activities. For the purposes of this subrule, “regulated hazardous waste” means a solid waste that is a hazardous waste, as deﬁned in Iowa Code section 455B.411. a. Waste screening for prohibited materials. Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must implement a program at the facility for detecting and preventing the disposal of regulated hazardous wastes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes and other prohibited wastes listed in paragraph 113.8(1)“b.” This program must include, at a minimum: (1) Random inspections of incoming loads unless the owner or operator takes other steps to ensure that incoming loads do not contain regulated hazardous wastes, PCB wastes or other prohibited wastes listed in paragraph 113.8(1)“b”; (2) Records of any inspections; (3) Training of facility personnel to recognize regulated hazardous wastes, PCB wastes and other prohibited wastes listed in paragraph 113.8(1)“b”; and (4) Notiﬁcation of the EPA regional administrator if regulated hazardous wastes or PCB wastes are discovered at the facility. b. Materials prohibited from disposal. The following wastes shall not be accepted for disposal by an MSWLF. Some wastes may be banned from disposal via the multiple categories listed below. (1) Hazardous waste, whether it is a chemical compound speciﬁcally listed by EPA as a regulated hazardous waste or a characteristic hazardous waste pursuant to the characteristics below: 1. Ignitable in that the waste has a ﬂash point (i.e., it will ignite) at a temperature of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 2. Corrosive in that the waste has a pH less than 2 or greater than 12.5

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

75

IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.23 3. Reactive in that the waste is normally unstable; reacts violently with water; forms an explosive mixture with water; contains quantities of cyanide or sulfur that could be released into the air in sufﬁcient quantity to be a danger to human health; or can easily be detonated or exploded. 4. Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) (EPA Method 1311) toxic, in that a TCLP listed chemical constituent exceeds the EPA assigned concentration standard in 40 CFR Part 261 or the department assigned concentration standard in Table I of rule 113.7(455B). Waste from a residential building that is contaminated by lead-based paint (i.e., the waste fails the TCLP test for lead only) may be disposed of in an MSWLF unit. The purpose of this exclusion is to help prevent the exposure of children to lead-based paint. Therefore, the meaning of “residential building” in regard to this TCLP exclusion shall be interpreted broadly and include any building which children or parents may utilize as a residence (temporarily or permanently). Such residential buildings include, but are not limited to, single-family homes, apartment buildings, townhomes, condominiums, public housing, military barracks, nursing homes, hotels, motels, bunkhouses, and campground cabins. (2) Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes with a concentration equal to or greater than 50 parts per million (ppm). (3) Free liquids, liquid waste and containerized liquids. For purposes of this subparagraph, “liquid waste” means any waste material that is determined to contain “free liquids” as deﬁned by Method 9095B (Paint Filter Liquids Test), as described in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods (EPA Pub. No. SW-846). For the purposes of this subparagraph, “gas condensate” means the liquid generated as a result of the gas recovery process(es) at the MSWLF unit. However, free liquids and containerized liquids may be placed in MSWLF units if: 1. The containerized liquid is household waste other than septic waste. The container must be a small container similar in size to that normally found in household waste; 2. The waste is leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF unit, whether it is a new or existing MSWLF unit or lateral expansion, and is designed with a composite liner and leachate collection system as described in paragraph 113.7(5)“a.” The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with this subparagraph and place the demonstration in the operating record; or 3. The MSWLF unit is a research, development and demonstration (RD&D) project in which the department has authorized the addition of liquids and meets the applicable requirements of subrule 113.4(10). (4) Septage, which is the raw material, liquids and pumpings from a septic system, unless treated pursuant to 567—Chapter 68. (5) Appliances as deﬁned pursuant to 567—Chapter 118, unless there is documentation that the appliance has been demanufactured pursuant to 567—Chapter 118. (6) Radioactive waste, excluding luminous timepieces and other items using very small amounts of tritium. (7) Infectious waste, unless managed and disposed of pursuant to 567—Chapter 109. (8) Hot loads, meaning solid waste that is smoking, smoldering, emitting ﬂames or hot gases, or otherwise indicating that the solid waste is in the process of combustion or close to igniting. Ash that has not been fully quenched or cooled is considered a hot load. Such wastes may be accepted at the gate, but shall be segregated and completely extinguished and cooled in a manner as safe and responsible as practical before disposal. (9) Asbestos-containing material (ACM) waste with greater than 1 percent asbestos, unless managed and disposed of pursuant to 567—Chapter 109.

76

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(10) Petroleum-contaminated soil, unless managed and remediated pursuant to 567—Chapter 120. (11) Grit and bar screenings, and grease skimmings, unless managed and disposed of pursuant to 567—Chapter 109. (12) Waste tires, unless each tire is processed into pieces no longer than 18 inches on any side. The department encourages the recycling of all waste tires, even if processed to disposal standards. Ch 113, p.24 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (13) Yard waste. (14) Lead-acid batteries. (15) Waste oil and materials containing free-ﬂowing waste oil. Materials contaminated with waste oil may be disposed of if no free-ﬂowing oil is retained in the material, and the material is not a hazardous waste. (16) Baled solid waste, unless the waste is baled on site after the waste has been visually inspected for prohibited materials. c. Open burning and ﬁre hazards. No open burning of any type shall be allowed within the permitted boundary of an MSWLF facility. The fueling of vehicles and equipment, and any other activity that may produce sparks or ﬂame, shall be conducted at least 50 feet away from the working face. d. Scavenging and salvaging. Scavenging shall not be allowed at the MSWLF facility. However, salvaging by MSWLF operators may be allowed. e. Animal feeding and grazing. Feeding animals MSW shall not be allowed at an MSWLF facility. The grazing of domestic animals on fully vegetated areas of the MSWLF facility not used for disposal, including closed MSWLF units, may be allowed by the department so long as the animals do not cause damage or interfere with operations, inspections, environmental monitoring and other required activities. Large, hoofed animals (including but not limited to buffalo, cattle, llamas, pigs, and horses) shall not be allowed on closed MSWLF units. 113.8(2) Disposal operations and activities. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following requirements. a. Survey controls and monuments. Survey controls and monuments shall be maintained as follows. (1) The property boundary, the permitted boundary and the boundaries of all MSWLF units shall be surveyed and marked by a professional land surveyor at least once prior to closure. (2) Prior to waste placement, all new MSWLF unit boundaries shall be surveyed and marked by a professional engineer. (3) Survey monuments shall be established to check vertical elevations and the progression of ﬁll sequencing. The survey monuments shall be established and maintained by a professional land surveyor. (4) All survey stakes and monuments shall be clearly marked. (5) A professional engineer shall biennially inspect all survey monuments and replace missing or damaged survey monuments. b. First lift. The ﬁrst lift and initial placement of MSW over a new MSWLF unit liner and leachate collection system shall comply with the following requirements. (1) Waste shall not be placed in the new MSWLF unit until the QC&A ofﬁcer has submitted a signed and sealed ﬁnal report to the department pursuant to paragraph 113.7(6)“d” and that report has been approved by the department.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

77

(2) Construction and earth-moving equipment shall not operate directly on the liner and leachate management system. Waste disposal operations shall begin at the edge of the new MSWLF unit by pushing MSW out over the liner and leachate collection system. Compactors and other similarly heavy equipment shall not operate directly on the leachate collection system until a minimum of 4 feet of waste has been mounded over the top of the leachate collection system. (3) Construction and demolition debris and materials clearly capable of spearing through the leachate collection system and liner shall not be placed in the ﬁrst 4 feet of waste over the top of the leachate collection system. The ﬁrst 4 feet of waste shall consist of select waste that is unlikely to damage the liner and performance of the leachate collection system. (4) The owner or operator must place documentation in the operating record and submit a copy to the department that adequate cover material was placed over the top of the leachate collection system in the MSWLF unit or that freeze/thaw effects had no adverse impact on the compacted clay component of the liner. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.25 c. Fill sequencing. The rate and phasing of disposal operations shall comply with the following requirements. (1) The ﬁll sequencing shall be planned and conducted in a manner and at a rate that do not cause a slope failure, lead to extreme differential settlement, or damage the liner and leachate collection system. (2) The ﬁll sequencing shall be planned and conducted in a manner compliant with the run-on and runoff requirements of subrule 113.7(8) and surface water requirements of rule 113.10 (455B). d. Working face. The working face shall comply with the following requirements. (1) The working face shall be no larger than necessary to accommodate the rate of disposal in a safe and efﬁcient manner. (2) The working face shall not be so steep as to cause heavy equipment and solid waste collection vehicles to roll over or otherwise lose control. (3) Litter control devices of sufﬁcient size to help prevent blowing litter shall be utilized at the working face. The operation of the working face shall attempt to minimize blowing litter. (4) The operation of the working face shall prevent the harborage of vectors and attempt to minimize the attraction of vectors. (5) Employees at the working face shall be trained to visually recognize universal symbols, markings and indications of prohibited wastes pursuant to paragraph 113.8(1)“b.” e. Special wastes. Special wastes shall be managed and disposed of pursuant to 567—Chapter 109. f. Cover material and alternative cover material. Pursuant to 567—Chapter 108, alternative cover material of an alternative thickness (e.g., tarps, spray covers) may be authorized if the owner or operator demonstrates to the approval of the department that the alternative material and thickness control vectors, ﬁres, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging without presenting a threat to human health and the environment. Cover material or alternative cover material shall be available for use during all seasons in all types of weather. Cover material and alternative cover material shall be utilized as follows unless otherwise approved by the department pursuant to 567—Chapter 108: (1) Daily cover. Six inches of cover material or an approved depth or application of alternative cover material shall be placed and maintained over waste in the active portion at the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control vectors, ﬁres, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.

78

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(2) Intermediate cover. At least 1 foot of compacted cover material or an approved depth or application of alternative cover material shall be placed and maintained over waste in the active portion that has not or will not receive more waste for at least 30 days. At least 2 feet of compacted cover material or alternative cover material shall be placed and maintained over waste in the active portion that has not or will not receive waste for at least 180 days. Such active portions shall be graded to manage runon and runoff pursuant to subrule 113.7(8). Such active portions shall be seeded if they will not receive waste for a full growing season. (3) Scariﬁcation of cover. To help prevent leachate seeps by aiding the downward ﬂow of leachate, cover material or alternative cover material, which prevents the downward ﬂow of leachate and is at least 5 feet from the outer edge of the MSWLF unit, shall be scariﬁed prior to use of that area as a working face. Cover material or alternative cover material that does not impede the downward ﬂow of leachate, as approved by the department, does not require scariﬁcation. Scariﬁcation may be as simple as the spearing or breaking up of a small area of the cover. Areas of intermediate cover may require removal of some of the cover material or alternative cover material to aid the downward ﬂow of leachate. (4) Final cover. Final cover over an MSWLF unit that is to be closed shall be constructed and maintained according to the closure and postclosure requirements of rules 113.12(455B) and 113.13(455B).

Ch 113, p.26 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 g. Leachate seeps. Leachate seeps shall be contained and plugged upon being identiﬁed. Leachate seeps shall not be allowed to reach waters of the state. Soils outside of the MSWLF unit that are contaminated by a leachate seep shall be excavated and then disposed of within the MSWLF unit. Such soils may be used for daily cover material. h. Leachate recirculation. The department must approve an MSWLF unit for leachate recirculation.

The primary goal of the leachate recirculation system is to help stabilize the waste in a more rapid, but controlled, manner. The leachate recirculation system shall not contaminate waters of the state, contribute to erosion, damage cover material, harm vegetation, or spray persons at the MSWLF facility. Leachate recirculation shall be limited to MSWLF units constructed with a composite liner. i. Differential settlement. Areas of differential settlement sufﬁcient to interfere with runoff and run-on shall be brought back up to the contours of the surrounding active portion. Differential settlement shall not be allowed to cause ponding of water on the active portion. 113.8(3) Facility operations and activities. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following requirements. a. Controlled access. Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must control public access and prevent unauthorized vehicular trafﬁc and illegal dumping of wastes by using artiﬁcial barriers, natural barriers, or both, as appropriate to protect human health and the environment. b. Scales and weights. A scale certiﬁed by the Iowa department of agriculture and land stewardship shall weigh all solid waste collection vehicles and solid waste transport vehicles. The owner or operator shall maintain a record of the weight of waste disposed of. c. All-weather access to disposal. A disposal area shall be accessible during all weather conditions. d. Salvaged and processed materials. Salvaged and processed materials (e.g., scrap metal, compost, mulch, aggregate, tire chips) shall be managed and stored in an orderly manner that does not create a nuisance or encourage the attraction or harborage of vectors.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

79

e. Vector control. Owners or operators must prevent or control the on-site populations of vectors using techniques appropriate for the protection of human health and the environment. f. Litter control. The operator shall take steps to minimize the production of litter and the release of windblown litter off site of the facility. All windblown litter off site of the facility shall be collected daily unless prevented by unsafe working conditions. On-site litter shall be collected daily unless prevented by working conditions. A dated record of unsafe conditions that prevented litter collection activities shall be maintained by the facility. g. Dust. The operator shall take steps to minimize the production of dust so that unsafe or nuisance conditions are prevented. Leachate shall not be used for dust control purposes. h. Mud. The operator shall take steps to minimize the tracking of mud by vehicles exiting the facility so that slick or unsafe conditions are prevented. i. Leachate and wastewater treatment. The leachate management system shall be managed and maintained pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 113.7(5)“b.” Leachate collection pipes shall be cleaned and inspected as necessary, but not less than once every three years. Leachate and wastewater shall be treated as necessary to meet the pretreatment limits, if any, imposed by an agreement between the MSWLF and a publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTW) or by the efﬂuent discharge limits established by an NPDES permit. Documentation of the POTW agreement or NPDES permit must be submitted to the department. All leachate and wastewater treatment systems shall conform to department wastewater design standards. j. Financial assurance. Financial assurance shall be maintained pursuant to rule 113.14(455B). IAC 7/4/07 IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.27 113.8(4) Development and operations plan (DOPs). An MSWLF unit shall maintain a development and operations plan (DOPs). At a minimum, the DOPs shall detail how the facility will operate and how compliance with the requirements of rule 113.8(455B) will be maintained. The DOPs shall contain at least the following components. a. A title page and table of contents. b. Telephone number of the ofﬁcial responsible for the operation of the facility and an emergency contact person if different. c. Service area of the facility and political jurisdictions included in that area. d. Days and hours of operation of the facility. e. Details of how the site will comply with the prohibited operations and activity requirements of subrule 113.8(1) and any related permit conditions. f. Details of how the site will comply with the disposal operation and activity requirements of subrule 113.8(2) and any related permit conditions. g. Details of how the site will comply with the facility operations and activity requirements of subrule 113.8(3), any related permit conditions, and any leachate and wastewater treatment requirements. 113.8(5) Emergency response and remedial action plan (ERRAP). All MSWLFs shall develop, submit to the department for approval, and maintain on site an ERRAP. a. ERRAP submittal requirements. An updated ERRAP shall be submitted to the department with any permit modiﬁcation or renewal request that incorporates facility changes that impact the ERRAP. b. Content. The ERRAP is intended to be a quick reference during an emergency. The content of the ERRAP shall be concise and readily usable as a reference manual by facility managers and operators during emergency conditions. The ERRAP shall contain and address at least the following components, unless facility conditions render the speciﬁc issue as not applicable. To facilitate department review, the rationale for exclusion of any issues that are not applicable

80

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

must be provided either in the body of the plan or as a supplement. Additional ERRAP requirements unique to the facility shall be addressed as applicable. (1) Facility information. 1. Permitted agency. 2. DNR permit number. 3. Responsible ofﬁcial and contact information. 4. Certiﬁed operator and contact information. 5. Facility description. 6. Site and environs map. (2) Regulatory requirements. 1. Iowa Code section 455B.306(6)“d” criteria citation. 2. Reference to provisions of the permit. (3) Emergency conditions, response activities and remedial action. 1. Failure of utilities. . Short-term (48 hours or less). . Long-term (over 48 hours). 2. Evacuation procedures during emergency conditions. 3. Weather-related events. . Tornado and wind events. . Snow and ice. . Intense rainstorms, mud, and erosion. . Lightning strikes. . Flooding. . Event and postevent conditions. Ch 113, p.28 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 4. Fire and explosions. . Waste materials. . Buildings and site. . Equipment. . Fuels. . Utilities. . Facilities. . Working area. . Hot loads. . Waste gases. . Explosive devices. 5. Regulated waste spills and releases. . Waste materials. . Leachate. . Waste gases. . Waste stockpiles and storage facilities. . Waste transport systems. . Litter and airborne particulate. . Site drainage system. . Off-site releases. 6. Hazardous material spills and releases. . Load-check control points. . Mixed waste deliveries.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

81

.

Fuels. Waste gases. . Site drainage systems. . Off-site releases. 7. Mass movement of land and waste. . Earthquakes. . Slope failure. . Waste shifts. . Waste subsidence. 8. Emergency and release notiﬁcation and reporting. . Federal agencies. . State agencies. . County and city agencies including emergency management services. . News media. . Public and private facilities with special populations within ﬁve miles. . Reporting requirements and forms. 9. Emergency waste management procedures. . Communications. . Temporary discontinuation of services—short-term and long-term. . Facilities access and rerouting. . Waste acceptance. . Wastes in process. 10. Primary emergency equipment inventory. . Major equipment. . Fire hydrants and water sources. . Off-site equipment resources. .

IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.29 11. Emergency aid. . Responder contacts. . Medical services. . Contracts and agreements. 12. ERRAP training requirements. . Training providers. . Employee orientation. . Annual training updates. . Training completion and record keeping. 13. Reference tables, ﬁgures and maps. 113.8(6) MSWLF operator certiﬁcation. Sanitary landﬁll operators shall be trained, tested, and certiﬁed by a department-approved certiﬁcation program. a. A sanitary landﬁll operator shall be on duty during all hours of operation of a sanitary landﬁll, consistent with the respective certiﬁcation. b. To become a certiﬁed operator, an individual shall complete a basic operator training course that has been approved by the department or an alternative, equivalent training approved by the department and shall pass a departmental examination as speciﬁed by this subrule. An operator certiﬁed by another state may have reciprocity subject to approval by the department. c. A sanitary landﬁll operator certiﬁcation is valid until June 30 of the following even-numbered year.

82

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

d. The required basic operator training course for a certiﬁed sanitary landﬁll operator shall have at least 25 contact hours and shall address the following areas, at a minimum: (1) Description of types of wastes. (2) Interpreting and using engineering plans. (3) Construction surveying techniques. (4) Waste decomposition processes. (5) Geology and hydrology. (6) Landﬁll design. (7) Landﬁll operation. (8) Environmental monitoring. (9) Applicable laws and regulations. (10) Permitting processes. (11) Leachate control and treatment. e. Alternate basic operator training must be approved by the department. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting any documentation the department may require to evaluate the equivalency of alternate training. f. Fees. (1) The examination fee for each examination is $20. (2) The initial certiﬁcation fee is $8 for each one-half year of a two-year period from the date of issuance to June 30 of the next even-numbered year. (3) The certiﬁcation renewal is $24. (4) The penalty fee is $12. g. Examinations. (1) The operator certiﬁcation examinations shall be based on the basic operator training course curriculum. Ch 113, p.30 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (2) All individuals wishing to take the examination required to become a certiﬁed operator of a sanitary landﬁll shall complete the Operator Certiﬁcation Examination Application, Form 5421354. A listing of dates and locations of examinations is available from the department upon request. The application form requires the applicant to indicate the basic operator training course taken. Evidence of training course completion must be submitted with the application for certiﬁcation. The completed application and the application fee shall be sent to the department and addressed to the central ofﬁce in Des Moines. Application for examination must be received by the department at least 30 days prior to the date of examination. (3) A properly completed application for examination shall be valid for one year from the date the application is approved by the department. (4) Upon failure of the ﬁrst examination, the applicant may be reexamined at the next scheduled examination. Upon failure of the second examination, the applicant shall be required to wait a period of 180 days between each subsequent examination. (5) Upon each reexamination when a valid application is on ﬁle, the applicant shall submit to the department the examination fee at least ten days prior to the date of examination. (6) Failure to successfully complete the examination within one year from the date of approval of the application shall invalidate the application. (7) Completed examinations will be retained by the department for a period of one year after which they will be destroyed. (8) Oral examinations may be given at the discretion of the department. h. Certiﬁcation.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

83

(1) All operators who passed the operator certiﬁcation examination by July 1, 1991, are exempt from taking the required operator training course. Beginning July 1, 1991, all operators are required to take the basic operator training course and pass the examination in order to become certiﬁed. (2) Application for certiﬁcation must be received by the department within 30 days of the date the applicant receives notiﬁcation of successful completion of the examination. All applications for certiﬁcation shall be made on a form provided by the department and shall be accompanied by the certiﬁcation fee. (3) Applications for certiﬁcation by examination which are received more than 30 days but less than 60 days after notiﬁcation of successful completion of the examination shall be accompanied by the certiﬁcation fee and the penalty fee. Applicants who do not apply for certiﬁcation within 60 days of notice of successful completion of the examination will not be certiﬁed on the basis of that examination. (4) For applicants who have been certiﬁed under other state mandatory certiﬁcation programs, the equivalency of which has been previously reviewed and accepted by the department, certiﬁcation without examination will be recommended. (5) For applicants who have been certiﬁed under voluntary certiﬁcation programs in other states, certiﬁcation will be considered. The applicant must have successfully completed a basic operator training course and an examination generally equivalent to the Iowa examination. The department may require the applicant to successfully complete the Iowa examination. (6) Applicants who seek Iowa certiﬁcation pursuant to subparagraphs 113.8(6)“h”(4) and (5) shall submit an application for examination accompanied by a letter requesting certiﬁcation pursuant to those subparagraphs. Application for certiﬁcation pursuant to those subparagraphs shall be received by the department in accordance with subparagraphs 113.8(6)“h”(2) and (3). IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.31 i. Renewals. All certiﬁcates shall expire every two years, on even-numbered years, and must be renewed every two years to maintain certiﬁcation. Application and fee are due prior to expiration of certiﬁcation. (1) Late application for renewal of a certiﬁcate may be made, provided that such late application shall be received by the department or postmarked within 30 days of the expiration of the certiﬁcate. Such late application shall be on forms provided by the department and accompanied by the penalty fee and the certiﬁcation renewal fee. (2) If a certiﬁcate holder fails to apply for renewal within 30 days following expiration of the certiﬁcate, the right to renew the certiﬁcate automatically terminates. Certiﬁcation may be allowed at any time following such termination, provided that the applicant successfully completes an examination. The applicant must then apply for certiﬁcation in accordance with paragraph 113.8(6)“h.” (3) An operator shall not continue to operate a sanitary landﬁll after expiration of a certiﬁcate without renewal thereof. (4) Continuing education must be earned during the two-year certiﬁcation period. All certiﬁed operators must earn ten contact hours per certiﬁcate during each two-year period. The two-year period will begin upon issuance of certiﬁcation. (5) Only those operators fulﬁlling the continuing education requirements before the end of each two-year period will be allowed to renew their certiﬁcates. The certiﬁcates of operators not fulﬁlling the continuing education requirements shall be void upon expiration, unless an extension is granted.

84

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(6) All activities for which continuing education credit will be granted must be related to the subject matter of the particular certiﬁcate to which the credit is being applied. (7) The department may, in individual cases involving hardship or extenuating circumstances, grant an extension of time of up to three months within which the applicant may fulﬁll the minimum continuing education requirements. Hardship or extenuating circumstances include documented health-related conﬁnement or other circumstances beyond the control of the certiﬁed operator which prevent attendance at the required activities. All requests for extensions must be made 60 days prior to expiration of certiﬁcation. (8) The certiﬁed operator is responsible for notifying the department of the continuing education credits earned during the period. The continuing education credits earned during the period shall be shown on the application for renewal. (9) A certiﬁed operator shall be deemed to have complied with the continuing education requirements of this subrule during periods that the operator serves honorably on active duty in the military service; or for periods that the operator is a resident of another state or district having a continuing education requirement for operators and meets all the requirements of that state or district for practice there; or for periods that the person is a government employee working as an operator and is assigned to duty outside the United States; or for other periods of active practice and absence from the state approved by the department. j. Discipline of certiﬁed operators. (1) Disciplinary action may be taken on any of the following grounds: 1. Failure to use reasonable care or judgment or to apply knowledge or ability in performing the duties of a certiﬁed operator. Duties of certiﬁed operators include compliance with rules and permit conditions applicable to landﬁll operation. 2. Failure to submit required records of operation or other reports required under applicable permits or rules of the department, including failure to submit complete records or reports. 3. Knowingly making any false statement, representation, or certiﬁcation on any application, record, report or document required to be maintained or submitted under any applicable permit or rule of the department. Ch 113, p.32 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (2) Disciplinary sanctions allowable are: 1. Revocation of a certiﬁcate. 2. Probation under speciﬁed conditions relevant to the speciﬁc grounds for disciplinary action.

Additional education or training or reexamination may be required as a condition of probation. (3) The procedure for discipline is as follows: 1. The department shall initiate disciplinary action. The commission may direct that the department investigate any alleged factual situation that may be grounds for disciplinary action under subparagraph 113.8(6)“j”(1) and report the results of the investigation to the commission. 2. A disciplinary action may be prosecuted by the department. 3. Written notice shall be given to an operator against whom disciplinary action is being considered. The notice shall state the informal and formal procedures available for determining the matter. The operator shall be given 20 days to present any relevant facts and indicate the operator’s position in the matter and to indicate whether informal resolution of the matter may be reached.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

85

4. An operator who receives notice shall communicate verbally, in writing, or in person with the department, and efforts shall be made to clarify the respective positions of the operator and department. 5. The applicant’s failure to communicate facts and positions relevant to the matter by the required date may be considered when determining appropriate disciplinary action. 6. If agreement as to appropriate disciplinary sanction, if any, can be reached with the operator and the commission concurs, a written stipulation and settlement between the department and the operator shall be entered into. The stipulation and settlement shall recite the basic facts and violations alleged, any facts brought forth by the operator, and the reasons for the particular sanctions imposed. 7. If an agreement as to appropriate disciplinary action, if any, cannot be reached, the department may initiate formal hearing procedures. Notice and formal hearing shall be in accordance with 567—Chapter 7 related to contested and certain other cases pertaining to license discipline. k. Revocation of certiﬁcates. Upon revocation of a certiﬁcate, application for certiﬁcation may be allowed after two years from the date of revocation. Any such applicant must successfully complete an examination and be certiﬁed in the same manner as a new applicant. l. Temporary certiﬁcation. A temporary operator of a sanitary landﬁll may be designated for a period of six months when an existing certiﬁed operator is no longer available to the facility. The facility must make application to the department, explain why a temporary certiﬁcation is needed, identify the temporary operator, and identify the efforts which will be made to obtain a certiﬁed operator. A temporary operator designation shall not be approved for greater than a sixmonth period except for extenuating circumstances. In any event, not more than one six-month extension to the temporary operator designation may be granted. Approval of a temporary operator designation may be rescinded for cause as set forth in paragraph 113.8(6)“j.” All MSWLFs shall have at least one MSWLF operator trained, tested and certiﬁed by a departmentapproved program. 567—113.9(455B) Environmental monitoring and corrective action requirements for air quality and landﬁll gas. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following environmental monitoring and corrective action requirements for air quality and landﬁll gas. 113.9(1) Air criteria. Owners or operators of all MSWLFs must ensure that the units do not violate any applicable requirements developed under a state implementation plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the department pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 113.9(2) Landﬁll gas. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following requirements for landﬁll gas. For purposes of this subrule, “lower explosive limit” means the lowest percent by volume of a mixture of explosive gases in air that will propagate a ﬂame at 25 C and atmospheric pressure. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.33 a. Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must ensure that: (1) The concentration of methane gas generated by the facility does not exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive limit for methane in facility structures (excluding gas pipeline, control or recovery system components); (2) The concentration of methane gas does not exceed the lower explosive limit for methane at the facility property boundary; and b. Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must implement a routine methane-monitoring program to ensure that the standards of paragraph 113.9(2)“a” are met. Such a program shall

86

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

include routine subsurface methane monitoring (e.g., at select groundwater wells, at gas monitoring wells). (1) The type and frequency of monitoring must be determined based on the following factors: 1. Soil conditions; 2. The hydrogeologic conditions surrounding the facility; 3. The hydraulic conditions surrounding the facility; 4. The location of facility structures (including potential subsurface preferential pathways such as, but not limited to, pipes, utility conduits, drain tiles and sewers) and property boundaries; and 5. The locations of structures near the outside of the facility to which or along which subsurface migration of methane gas may occur. Examples of such structures include, but are not limited to, houses, buildings, basements, crawl spaces, pipes, utility conduits, drain tiles and sewers. (2) The minimum frequency of monitoring shall be quarterly. c. If methane gas levels exceeding the limits speciﬁed in paragraph 113.9(2)“a” are detected, the owner or operator must: (1) Immediately take all necessary steps to ensure protection of human health and notify the department and department ﬁeld ofﬁce with jurisdiction over the MSWLF; (2) Within 7 days of detection, place in the operating record and notify the department and department ﬁeld ofﬁce with jurisdiction over the MSWLF of the methane gas levels detected and a description of the steps taken to protect human health; and (3) Within 60 days of detection, implement a remediation plan for the methane gas releases, place a copy of the plan in the operating record, and notify the department and department ﬁeld ofﬁce with jurisdiction over the MSWLF that the plan has been implemented. The plan shall describe the nature and extent of the problem and the proposed remedy. d. The owner or operator shall submit an annual report to the department detailing the gas monitoring sampling locations and results, any action taken, and the results of steps taken to address gas levels exceeding the limits of paragraph 113.9(2)“a” during the previous year. This report shall include a site map that delineates all structures, perimeter boundary locations, and other monitoring points where gas readings were taken. The site map shall also delineate areas of landﬁll gas migration outside the MSWLF units, if any. The report shall contain a narrative explaining and interpreting all of the data collected during the previous year. The report shall be due each year at a date speciﬁed by the department in the facility’s permit. 567—113.10(455B) Environmental monitoring and corrective action requirements for groundwater and surface water. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following environmental monitoring and corrective action requirements for groundwater and surface water. 113.10(1) General requirements for environmental monitoring and corrective action for groundwater and surface water. The following general requirements apply to all provisions of this rule. a. Surface water requirements. MSWLF units shall not: (1) Cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, including wetlands, that violates any requirements of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Ch 113, p.34 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (2) Cause the discharge of a nonpoint source of pollution into waters of the United States, including wetlands, that violates any requirement of an areawide or statewide water quality management plan that has been approved under Section 208 or 319 of the Clean Water Act.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

87

b. A new MSWLF unit must be in compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements speciﬁed in subrules 113.10(2), 113.10(4), 113.10(5) and 113.10(6) before waste can be placed in the unit. c. Once established at an MSWLF unit, groundwater monitoring shall be conducted throughout the active life and postclosure care period of that MSWLF unit as speciﬁed in rule 113.13 (455B). d. For the purposes of this rule, a “qualiﬁed groundwater scientist” means a scientist or an engineer who has received a baccalaureate or postgraduate degree in the natural sciences or engineering and has sufﬁcient training and experience in groundwater hydrology and related ﬁelds demonstrated by state registration, professional certiﬁcations, or completion of accredited university programs that enable that individual to make sound professional judgments regarding groundwater monitoring, contaminant fate and transport, and corrective action. e. The department may establish alternative schedules for demonstrating compliance with: (1) Subparagraph 113.10(2)“e”(3), pertaining to notiﬁcation of placement of certiﬁcation in operating record; (2) Subparagraph 113.10(5)“c”(1), pertaining to notiﬁcation that statistically signiﬁcant increase (SSI) notice is in operating record; (3) Subparagraphs 113.10(5)“c”(2) and (3), pertaining to an assessment monitoring program; (4) Paragraph 113.10(6)“b,” pertaining to sampling and analyzing Appendix II constituents; (5) Subparagraph 113.10(6)“d”(1), pertaining to placement of notice (Appendix II constituents detected) in record and notiﬁcation of placement of notice in record; (6) Subparagraph 113.10(6)“d”(2), pertaining to sampling for Appendices I and II; (7) Paragraph 113.10(6)“g,” pertaining to notiﬁcation (and placement of notice in record) of SSI above groundwater protection standard; (8) Numbered paragraph 113.10(6)“g”(1)“4” and paragraph 113.10(7)“a,” pertaining to assessment of corrective measures; (9) Paragraph 113.10(8)“a,” pertaining to selection of remedy and notiﬁcation of placement in record; (10) Paragraph 113.10(9)“f,” pertaining to notiﬁcation of placement in record (certiﬁcation of remedy completed). 113.10(2) Groundwater monitoring systems. All MSWLFs shall have a groundwater monitoring system that complies with the following requirements: a. A groundwater monitoring system must be installed that meets the following objectives: (1) Yields groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent the quality of background groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from a unit. A determination of background quality may include sampling of wells that are not hydraulically upgradient of the waste management area where either: 1. Hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator to determine which wells are hydraulically upgradient; or 2. Sampling at other wells will provide an indication of background groundwater quality that is as representative as or more representative than that provided by the upgradient wells. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.35 (2) Yields groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent the quality of groundwater passing the relevant point of compliance speciﬁed by the department under numbered paragraph 113.7(5)“a”(2)“2.” The downgradient monitoring system must be installed at the relevant point of compliance speciﬁed by the department under numbered

88

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

paragraph 113.7(5)“a”(2)“2” that ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer. When physical obstacles preclude installation of groundwater monitoring wells at the relevant point of compliance at existing units, the downgradient monitoring system may be installed at the closest practicable distance, hydraulically downgradient from the relevant point of compliance speciﬁed by the department under numbered paragraph 113.7(5)“a”(2)“2,” that ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer. (3) Provides a high level of certainty that releases of contaminants from the site can be promptly detected. Downgradient monitoring wells shall be placed along the site perimeter, within 50 feet of the planned liner or waste boundary unless site conditions dictate otherwise, downgradient of the facility with respect to the hydrologic unit being monitored. Each groundwater underdrain system shall be included in the groundwater detection monitoring program under subrule 113.10(5). The maximum drainage area routed through each outfall shall not exceed 10 acres unless it can be demonstrated that site-speciﬁc factors such as drain ﬂow capacity or site development sequencing require an alternative drainage area. If contamination is identiﬁed in the groundwater underdrain system pursuant to subrule 113.10(5), the owner or operator shall manage the underdrain discharge as leachate in lieu of assessment monitoring and corrective action. (4) Be designed and constructed with the theoretical release evaluation pursuant to subparagraph 113.6(3)“e”(6) taken into consideration. b. For those facilities which are long-term, multiphase operations, the department may establish temporary waste boundaries in order to deﬁne locations for monitoring wells. The convergence of groundwater paths to minimize the overall length of the downgradient dimension may be taken into consideration in the placement of downgradient monitoring wells provided that the multiphase unit groundwater monitoring system meets the requirements of paragraphs 113.10 (2)“a,” 113.10(2)“c,” 113.10(2)“d” and 113.10(2)“e” and will be as protective of human health and the environment as the individual monitoring systems for each MSWLF unit, based on the following factors: (1) Number, spacing, and orientation of the MSWLF units; (2) Hydrogeologic setting; (3) Site history; (4) Engineering design of the MSWLF units; and (5) Type of waste accepted at the MSWLF units. c. Monitoring wells must be constructed and cased by a well contractor certiﬁed pursuant to 567—Chapter 82 in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring well borehole. This casing must be screened or perforated and packed with gravel or sand, where necessary, to enable collection of groundwater samples. The annular space (i.e., the space between the borehole and well casing) above the sampling depth must be sealed to prevent contamination of samples and the groundwater. Monitoring wells constructed in accordance with the rules in effect at the time of construction shall not be required to be abandoned and reconstructed as a result of subsequent amendments to these rules unless the department ﬁnds that the well is no longer providing representative groundwater samples. See Figure 1 for a general diagram of a properly constructed monitoring well. (1) The owner or operator must notify the department that the design, installation, development, and decommission of any monitoring wells, piezometers and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices documentation has been placed in the operating record. (2) The monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices must be operated and maintained so that they perform to design speciﬁcations throughout the life of the monitoring program.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

89

Ch 113, p.36 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (3) Each groundwater monitoring point must have a unique and permanent number, and that number must never change or be used again at the MSWLF. The types of groundwater monitoring points shall be identiﬁed as follows: 1. Monitoring wells by “MW# (Insert unique and permanent number)”. 2. Piezometers by “PZ# (Insert unique and permanent number)”. 3. Groundwater underdrain systems by “GU# (Insert unique and permanent number)”. (4) Monitoring well construction shall be performed by a certiﬁed well contractor (pursuant to 567—Chapter 82) and shall comply with the following requirements: 1. In all phases of drilling, well installation and completion, the methods and materials used shall not introduce substances or contaminants that may alter the results of water quality analyses. 2. Drilling equipment that comes into contact with contaminants in the borehole or aboveground shall be thoroughly cleaned to avoid spreading contamination to other depths or locations. Contaminated materials or leachate from wells must not be discharged onto the ground surface or into waters of the state so as to cause harm in the process of drilling or well development. 3. The owner or operator must ensure that, at a minimum, the well design and construction log information is maintained in the facility’s permanent record using DNR Form 542-1277 and that a copy is sent to the department. (5) Monitoring well casings shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The diameter of the inner well casing (see Figure 1) of a monitoring well shall be at least 2 inches. 2. Plastic-cased wells shall be constructed of materials with threaded and nonglued joints that do not allow water inﬁltration under the local subsurface pressure conditions and when the well is evacuated for sampling. 3. Well casing shall provide sufﬁcient structural stability so that a borehole or well collapse does not occur. Flush joint casing is required for small diameter wells installed through hollow stem augers. (6) Monitoring well screens shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Slot size shall be based on sieve analysis of the sand and gravel stratum or ﬁlter pack. The slot size must keep out at least 90 percent of the ﬁlter pack. 2. Slot conﬁguration and open area must permit effective development of the well. 3. The screen shall be no longer than 10 feet in length, except for water table wells, in which case the screen shall be of sufﬁcient length to accommodate normal seasonal ﬂuctuations of the water table. The screen shall be placed 5 feet above and below the observed water table, unless local conditions are known to produce greater ﬂuctuations. Screen length for piezometers shall be 2 feet or less. Multiplescreened, single-cased wells are prohibited. (7) Monitoring well ﬁlter packs shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The ﬁlter pack shall extend at least 18 inches above and 12 inches below the well screen. 2. The size of the ﬁlter pack material shall be based on sieve analysis when sand and gravel are screened. The ﬁlter pack material must be 2.5 to 3 times larger than the 50 percent grain size of the zone being monitored. 3. In stratum that is neither sand nor gravel, the size of the ﬁlter pack material shall be selected based on the particle size of the zone being monitored. (8) Monitoring well annular space shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Grouting materials must be installed from the top of the ﬁlter pack up in one continuous operation with a tremie tube.

90

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

2. The annular space between the ﬁlter pack and the frostline must be backﬁlled with bentonite grout. 3. The remaining annular space between the protective casing and the monitoring well casing must be sealed with bentonite grout from the frostline to the ground surface. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.37 (9) Monitoring well heads shall be protected as follows: 1. Monitoring wells shall have a protective metal casing installed around the upper portion of the monitoring well casing as follows: . The inside diameter of the protective metal casing shall be at least 2 inches larger than the outer diameter of the monitoring well casing. . The protective metal casing shall extend from a minimum of 1 foot below the frostline to slightly above the well casing top; however, the protective casing shall be shortened if such a depth would cover a portion of the well screen. . The protective casing shall be sealed and immobilized with a concrete plug around the outside. The bottom of the concrete plug must extend at least 1 foot below the frostline; however, the concrete plug shall be shortened if such a depth would cover a portion of the well screen. The top of the concrete plug shall extend at least 3 inches above the ground surface and slope away from the well. Soil may be placed above the plug and shall be at least 6 inches below the cap to improve runoff. . The inside of the protective casing shall be sealed with bentonite grout from the frostline to the ground surface. . A vented cap shall be placed on the monitoring well casing. . A vented, locking cap shall be placed on the protective metal casing. The cap must be kept locked when the well is not being sampled. 2. All monitoring wells shall have a ring of brightly colored protective posts or other protective barriers to help prevent accidental damage. 3. All monitoring wells shall have a sign or permanent marking clearly identifying the permanent monitoring well number (MW#). 4. Run-on shall be directed away from all monitoring wells. (10) Well development is required prior to the use of the monitoring well for water quality monitoring purposes. Well development must loosen and remove ﬁnes from the well screen and gravel pack. Any water utilized to stimulate well development must be of sufﬁcient quality that future samples are not contaminated. Any gases utilized in well development must be inert gases that will not contaminate future samples. Following development, the well shall be pumped until the water does not contain signiﬁcant amounts of suspended solids. d. Groundwater monitoring points that are no longer functional must be sealed. Groundwater monitoring points that are to be sealed and are in a future waste disposal area shall be reviewed to determine if the method utilized to seal the monitoring point needs to be more protective than the following requirements. All abandoned groundwater-monitoring points (e.g., boreholes, monitoring wells, and piezometers) shall be sealed by a well contractor certiﬁed pursuant to 567—Chapter 82 and in accordance with the following requirements. (1) The following information shall be placed in the operating record and a copy sent to the department: 1. The unique, permanent monitoring point number. 2. The reasons for abandoning the monitoring point. 3. The date and time the monitoring point was sealed.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

91

4. The method utilized to remove monitoring point materials. 5. The method utilized to seal the monitoring point. 6. Department Form 542-1226 for Water Well Abandonment Plugging Record. (2) The monitoring point materials (e.g., protective casing, casing, screen) shall be removed. If drilling is utilized to remove the materials, then the drilling shall be to the maximum depth of the previously drilled monitoring point. All drilling debris shall be cleaned from the interior of the borehole. Ch 113, p.38 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (3) The cleared borehole shall be sealed with impermeable bentonite grout via a tremie tube. The end of the tremie tube shall be submerged in the grout while ﬁlling from the bottom of the borehole to the top of the ground surface. Uncontaminated water shall be added from the surface as needed to aid grout expansion. (4) After 24 hours, the bentonite grout shall be retopped if it has settled below the ground surface. e. Hydrologic monitoring system plan (HMSP). Unless otherwise approved by the department in writing, the number, spacing, and depth of groundwater monitoring points shall be: (1) Determined based upon site-speciﬁc technical information, including but not limited to the soil and hydrogeologic investigation pursuant to subrule 113.6(3) and the site exploration and characterization report pursuant to subrule 113.6(4), that must include thorough characterization of: 1. Aquifer thickness, groundwater ﬂow rate, and groundwater ﬂow direction including seasonal and temporal ﬂuctuations in groundwater ﬂow; and 2. Saturated and unsaturated geologic units and ﬁll materials overlying the uppermost aquifer, materials comprising the uppermost aquifer, and materials comprising the conﬁning unit deﬁning the lower boundary of the uppermost aquifer, including, but not limited to: thicknesses, stratigraphy, lithology, hydraulic conductivities, porosities and effective porosities; and 3. Projected paths and rates of movement of contaminants found in leachate pursuant to subparagraph 113.6(3)“e”(6). (2) Designed and constructed with a maximum of 300 feet between downgradient groundwater monitoring wells, unless it is demonstrated by site-speciﬁc analysis or modeling that an alternative well spacing is justiﬁed. The convergence of groundwater paths to minimize the overall length of the downgradient dimension may be taken into consideration in the placement of downgradient monitoring wells provided that the groundwater monitoring system meets the requirements of paragraphs 113.10(2)“a,” 113.10(2)“c,” 113.10(2)“d,” and 113.10(2)“e.” (3) Certiﬁed by a qualiﬁed groundwater scientist, as deﬁned in paragraph 113.10(1)“d,” and approved by the department. Within 14 days of this certiﬁcation and approval by the department, the owner or operator must notify the department that the certiﬁcation has been placed in the operating record. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.39 Ch 113, p.40 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 f. Monitoring well maintenance and performance reevaluation plan. A monitoring well maintenance and performance reevaluation plan shall be included as part of the hydrologic monitoring system plan. The plan shall ensure that all monitoring points remain reliable. The plan shall provide for the following: (1) A biennial examination of high and low water levels accompanied by a discussion of the acceptability of well location (vertically and horizontally) and exposure of the screened interval to the atmosphere.

92

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(2) A biennial evaluation of water level conditions in the monitoring wells to ensure that the effects of waste disposal or well operation have not resulted in changes in the hydrologic setting and resultant ﬂow paths. (3) Measurements of well depths to ensure that wells are physically intact and not ﬁlling with sediment. Measurements shall be taken annually in wells which do not contain dedicated sampling pumps and every ﬁve years in wells containing dedicated sampling pumps. (4) A biennial evaluation of well recharge rates and chemistry to determine if well deterioration is occurring. 113.10(3) Surface water monitoring systems. The department may require an MSWLF facility to implement a surface water monitoring program if there is reason to believe that a surface water of the state has been impacted as a result of facility operations (i.e., leachate seeps, sediment pond discharge) or a groundwater SSI over background has occurred. a. A surface water monitoring program must be developed that consists of a sufﬁcient number of monitoring points, designated at appropriate locations, to yield surface water samples that: (1) Provide a representative sample of the upstream quality of a surface water of the state if the surface water being monitored is a ﬂowing body of water. (2) Provide a representative sample of the downstream quality of a surface water of the state if the surface water being monitored is a ﬂowing body of water. b. Surface water levels must be measured at a frequency speciﬁed in the facility’s permit, within 1/10 of a foot at each surface water monitoring point immediately prior to sampling, each time surface water is sampled. The owner or operator must determine the rate and direction of surface water ﬂow, if any, each time surface water is sampled. Surface water level and ﬂow measurements for the same surface water of the state must be measured on the same day to avoid temporal variations that could preclude accurate determination of surface water ﬂow and direction. c. The owner or operator must notify and receive approval from the department for the designation or decommission of any surface water monitoring point, and must place that approval in the operating record. d. The surface water monitoring points shall be designated to maintain sampling at that monitoring point throughout the life of the surface water monitoring program. e. Each surface water monitoring point must have a unique and permanent number, and that number must never change or be used again at the MSWLF. Surface water monitoring points shall be identiﬁed by “SW# (Insert unique and permanent number)”. f. The number, spacing, and location of the surface water monitoring points shall be determined based upon site-speciﬁc technical information, including: (1) Water level, including seasonal and temporal ﬂuctuations in water level; and (2) Flow rate and ﬂow direction, including seasonal and temporal ﬂuctuations in ﬂow. g. The MSWLF may discontinue the surface water monitoring program if monitoring data indicates that facility operations are not impacting surface water. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.41 113.10(4) Groundwater sampling and analysis requirements. a. The groundwater monitoring program must include consistent sampling and analysis procedures that are designed to ensure monitoring results that provide an accurate representation of groundwater quality at the background and downgradient wells installed in compliance

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

93

with subrule 113.10(2). The groundwater monitoring program shall utilize a laboratory certiﬁed by the department. The owner or operator must notify the department that the sampling and analysis program documentation has been placed in the operating record, and the program must include procedures and techniques for: (1) Sample collection; (2) Sample preservation and shipment; (3) Analytical procedures; (4) Chain of custody control; and (5) Quality assurance and quality control. b. The groundwater monitoring programs must include sampling and analytical methods that are appropriate for groundwater sampling and that accurately measure hazardous constituents and other monitoring parameters in groundwater samples. Groundwater samples shall not be ﬁeld-ﬁltered prior to laboratory analysis. c. The sampling procedures and frequency must be protective of human health and the environment, and consistent with subrule 113.10(5). d. Groundwater elevations must be measured at a frequency speciﬁed in the facility’s permit, within 1/100 of a foot in each well immediately prior to purging, each time groundwater is sampled. The owner or operator must determine the rate and direction of groundwater ﬂow each time groundwater is sampled. Groundwater elevations in wells which monitor the same waste management area must be measured within a period of time short enough to avoid temporal variations in groundwater ﬂow which could preclude accurate determination of groundwater ﬂow rate and direction. e. The owner or operator must establish background groundwater quality in a hydraulically upgradient or background well(s) for each of the monitoring parameters or constituents required in the particular groundwater monitoring program that applies to the MSWLF unit, as determined under paragraph 113.10(5)“a” or 113.10(6)“a.” Background groundwater quality may be established at wells that are not located hydraulically upgradient from the MSWLF unit if the wells meet the requirements of subparagraph 113.10(2)“a”(1). f. The number of samples collected to establish groundwater quality data must be consistent with the appropriate statistical procedures determined pursuant to paragraph 113.10(4)“g.” The sampling procedures shall be those speciﬁed under paragraphs 113.10(5)“b” for detection monitoring, 113.10(6)“b” and 113.10(6)“d” for assessment monitoring, and 113.10(7)“b” for corrective action. g. The owner or operator must specify in the operating record which of the following statistical methods will be used in evaluating groundwater monitoring data for each hazardous constituent. The statistical test chosen shall be conducted separately for each hazardous constituent in each well. (1) A parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by multiple comparisons procedures to identify statistically signiﬁcant evidence of contamination. The method must include estimation and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well’s mean and the background mean levels for each constituent. (2) An analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on ranks followed by multiple comparisons procedures to identify statistically signiﬁcant evidence of contamination. The method must include estimation and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well’s median and the background median levels for each constituent.

94

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(3) A tolerance or prediction interval procedure in which an interval for each constituent is established from the distribution of the background data, and the level of each constituent in each compliance well is compared to the upper tolerance or prediction limit. Ch 113, p.42 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (4) A control chart approach that gives control limits for each constituent. (5) Another statistical test method that meets the performance standards of paragraph 113.10 (4)“h.” The owner or operator must place a justiﬁcation for this alternative in the operating record and notify the department of the use of this alternative test. The justiﬁcation must demonstrate that the alternative method meets the performance standards of paragraph 113.10 (4)“h.” h. The statistical method required pursuant to paragraph 113.10(4)“g” shall comply with the following performance standards: (1) The statistical method used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data shall be appropriate for the distribution of chemical parameters or hazardous constituents. If the distribution of the chemical parameters or hazardous constituents is shown by the owner or operator to be inappropriate for a normal theory test, then the data shall be transformed or a distribution-free theory test shall be used. If the distributions for the constituents differ, more than one statistical method may be needed. (2) If an individual well comparison procedure is used to compare an individual compliance well constituent concentration with background constituent concentrations or a groundwater protection standard, the test shall be done at a Type I error level not less than 0.01 for each testing period. If a multiple comparisons procedure is used, the Type I experimentwise error rate for each testing period shall be not less than 0.05; however, the Type I error level of not less than 0.01 for individual well comparisons must be maintained. (3) If a control chart approach is used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data, the speciﬁc type of control chart and its associated parameter values shall be protective of human health and the environment. The parameters shall be determined after the number of samples in the background data base, the data distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of concern have been considered. (4) If a tolerance interval or a predictional interval is used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data, the levels of conﬁdence and, for tolerance intervals, the percentage of the population that the interval must contain, shall be protective of human health and the environment. These parameters shall be determined after the number of samples in the background data base, the data distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of concern have been considered. (5) The statistical method shall account for data below the limit of detection (LD) by recording such data at one-half the limit of detection (i.e., LD/2) or as prescribed by the statistical method. Any practical quantitation limit (pql) that is used in the statistical method shall be the lowest concentration level that can be reliably achieved within speciﬁed limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions that are available to the facility. (6) If necessary, the statistical method shall include procedures to control or correct for seasonal and spatial variability as well as temporal correlation in the data. i. The owner or operator must determine whether or not there is an SSI over background values for each parameter or constituent required in the particular groundwater monitoring program that applies to the MSWLF unit, as determined under paragraph 113.10(5)“a” or 113.10(6)“a.”

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

95

(1) In determining whether an SSI has occurred, the owner or operator must compare the groundwater quality of each parameter or constituent at each monitoring well designated pursuant to subrule 113.10(2) to the background value of that constituent, according to the statistical procedures and performance standards speciﬁed under paragraphs 113.10(4)“g” and 113.10(4)“h.” (2) Within 45 days after completing sampling and analysis, the owner or operator must determine whether there has been an SSI over background at each monitoring well. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.43 113.10(5) Detection monitoring program. a. Detection monitoring is required at MSWLF units at all groundwater monitoring wells deﬁned under subrule 113.10(2). At a minimum, a detection monitoring program must include the monitoring for the constituents listed in Appendix I and any additional parameters required by the department on a site-speciﬁc basis. An alternative list of constituents may be used if it can be demonstrated that the constituents removed are not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste contained in the unit and if the alternative list of constituents is expected to provide a reliable indication of leachate leakage or gas impact from the MSWLF unit. (1) The department may establish an alternative list of inorganic indicator parameters for an MSWLF unit within Appendix I, in lieu of some or all of the heavy metals (constituents 1 to 15 in Appendix I), if the alternative parameters provide a reliable indication of inorganic releases from the MSWLF unit to the groundwater. In determining alternative parameters, the department shall consider the following factors: 1. The types, quantities and concentrations of constituents in wastes managed at the MSWLF unit; 2. The mobility, stability and persistence of waste constituents or their reaction products in the unsaturated zone beneath the MSWLF unit; 3. The detectability of indicator parameters, waste constituents and reaction products in the groundwater; and 4. The concentration or values and coefﬁcients of variation of monitoring parameters or constituents in the groundwater background. (2) Reserved. b. The monitoring frequency for all constituents listed in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1) shall be at least semiannual (i.e., every six months) during the active life of the facility (including closure) and the postclosure period. Where insufﬁcient background data exist, a minimum of ﬁve independent samples from each well, collected at intervals to account for seasonal and temporal variation, must be analyzed for the constituents in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1) during the ﬁrst year. At least one sample from each well must be collected and analyzed during subsequent semiannual sampling events. The department may specify an appropriate alternative frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for constituents in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1) during the active life (including closure) and the postclosure care period. The alternative frequency during the active life (including closure) shall be not less than annually. The alternative frequency shall be based on consideration of the following factors: (1) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone; (2) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

96

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

(3) Groundwater ﬂow rates; (4) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and downgradient monitoring well screen (minimum distance of travel); and (5) Resource value of the aquifer. c. If the owner or operator determines, pursuant to paragraph 113.10(4)“i,” that there is an SSI over background for one or more of the constituents listed in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1) at any monitoring well speciﬁed under subrule 113.10(2), then the owner or operator: (1) Must, within 14 days of this ﬁnding, place a notice in the operating record indicating which constituents have shown statistically signiﬁcant changes from background levels, and notify the department that this notice was placed in the operating record. (2) Must establish within 90 days an assessment monitoring program meeting the requirements of subrule 113.10(6) except as provided in subparagraph 113.10(5)“c”(3). Ch 113, p.44 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (3) The owner or operator may demonstrate that a source other than an MSWLF unit caused the contamination or that the SSI resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. A report documenting this demonstration must be certiﬁed by a qualiﬁed groundwater scientist, approved by the department, and placed in the operating record. If resampling is a part of the demonstration, resampling procedures shall be speciﬁed prior to initial sampling. If a successful demonstration to the department is made and documented, the owner or operator may continue detection monitoring as speciﬁed in subrule 113.10(5). If, after 90 days, a successful demonstration is not made, the owner or operator must initiate an assessment monitoring program as required in subrule 113.10(6). 113.10(6) Assessment monitoring program. a. Assessment monitoring is required whenever an SSI over background has been conﬁrmed pursuant to paragraph 113.10(5)“c” to be the result of a release from the facility. b. Within 90 days of triggering an assessment monitoring program, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator must sample and analyze the groundwater for all constituents identiﬁed in Appendix II. A minimum of one sample from each downgradient well shall be collected and analyzed during each sampling event. For any constituent detected in the downgradient wells as a result of the complete Appendix II analysis, a minimum of four independent samples from each well must be collected and analyzed to establish background for the constituents. The department may specify an appropriate subset of wells to be sampled and analyzed for Appendix II constituents during assessment monitoring. The department may delete any of the Appendix II monitoring parameters for an MSWLF unit if it can be shown that the removed constituents are not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste contained in the unit. c. The department may specify an appropriate alternate frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for the full set of Appendix II constituents required by paragraph 113.10(6)“b” during the active life (including closure) and postclosure care period of the unit. The following factors shall be considered: (1) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone; (2) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone; (3) Groundwater ﬂow rates; (4) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and downgradient monitoring well screen (minimum distance of travel);

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

97

(5) Resource value of the aquifer; and (6) Nature (fate and transport) of any constituents detected in response to this paragraph. d. After obtaining the results from the initial or subsequent sampling events required in paragraph 113.10(6)“b,” the owner or operator must: (1) Within 14 days, place a notice in the operating record identifying the Appendix II constituents that have been detected and notify the department that this notice has been placed in the operating record; (2) Within 90 days, and on at least a semiannual basis thereafter, resample all wells speciﬁed by subrule 113.10(2) and conduct analyses for all constituents in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1), and for those constituents in Appendix II that are detected in response to the requirements of paragraph 113.10(6)“b.” Concentrations shall be recorded in the facility operating record. At least one sample from each well must be collected and analyzed during these sampling events. The department may specify an alternative monitoring frequency during the active life (including closure) and the postclosure period for the constituents referred to in this subparagraph. The alternative frequency for constituents in Appendix I or in the alternative list approved in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(5)“a”(1) during the active life (including closure) shall be no less than annual. The alternative frequency shall be based on consideration of the factors speciﬁed in paragraph 113.10(6)“c”; IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.45 (3) Establish background concentrations for any constituents detected pursuant to paragraph 113.10(6)“b” or subparagraph 113.10(6)“d”(2); and (4) Establish groundwater protection standards for all constituents detected pursuant to paragraph 113.10(6)“b” or 113.10(6)“d.” The groundwater protection standards shall be established in accordance with paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i.” e. If the concentrations of all Appendix II constituents are shown to be at or below background values, using the statistical procedures in paragraph 113.10(4)“g” for two consecutive sampling events, the owner or operator must notify the department of this ﬁnding and may return to detection monitoring. f. If the concentrations of any Appendix II constituents are above background values, but all concentrations are below the groundwater protection standard established under paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i,” using the statistical procedures in paragraph 113.10(4)“g,” the owner or operator must continue assessment monitoring in accordance with this subrule. g. If one or more Appendix II constituents are detected at statistically signiﬁcant levels above the groundwater protection standard established under paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i” in any sampling event, the owner or operator must, within 14 days of this ﬁnding, place a notice in the operating record identifying the Appendix II constituents that have exceeded the groundwater protection standard and notify the department and all other appropriate local government ofﬁcials that the notice has been placed in the operating record. The owner or operator also: (1) Must, within 90 days of this ﬁnding, comply with the following requirements or the requirements in subparagraph 113.10(6)“g”(2): 1. Characterize the nature and extent of the release by installing additional monitoring wells as necessary until the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the plume have been deﬁned to background concentrations;

98

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

2. Install at least one additional monitoring well at the facility boundary in the direction of contaminant migration and sample this well in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(6)“g”(2); 3. Notify all persons who own the land or reside on the land that directly overlies any part of the plume of contamination if contaminants have migrated off site when indicated by sampling of wells in accordance with subparagraph 113.10(6)“g”(1); and 4. Initiate an assessment of corrective measures as required by subrule 113.10(7). (2) May demonstrate that a source other than an MSWLF unit caused the contamination, or that the SSI resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. A report documenting this demonstration must be certiﬁed by a qualiﬁed groundwater scientist, approved by the department, and placed in the operating record. If a successful demonstration is made, the owner or operator must continue monitoring in accordance with the assessment monitoring program pursuant to subrule 113.10(6), and may return to detection monitoring if the Appendix II constituents are at or below background as speciﬁed in paragraph 113.10(6)“e.” Until a successful demonstration is made, the owner or operator must comply with paragraph 113.10(6)“g” including initiating an assessment of corrective measures. h. The owner or operator must establish a groundwater protection standard for each Appendix II constituent detected in the groundwater. The groundwater protection standard shall be: (1) For constituents for which a maximum contaminant level (MCL) has been promulgated under Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (codiﬁed) under 40 CFR Part 141, the MCL for that constituent; (2) For constituents for which MCLs have not been promulgated, the background concentration for the constituent established from wells in accordance with subrule 113.10(2); or (3) For constituents for which the background concentration is higher than the MCL identiﬁed under subparagraph 113.10(6)“h”(1) or health-based concentrations identiﬁed under paragraph 113.10(6)“i,” the background concentration. Ch 113, p.46 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 i. The department may establish an alternative groundwater protection standard for constituents for which MCLs have not been established. These groundwater protection standards shall be appropriate health-based concentrations that comply with the statewide standards for groundwater established pursuant to 567—Chapter 137. j. In establishing alternative groundwater protection standards under paragraph 113.10(6)“i,” the department may consider the following: (1) The policies set forth by the Groundwater Protection Act; (2) Multiple contaminants in the groundwater with the assumption that the effects are additive regarding detrimental effects to human health and the environment; (3) Exposure threats to sensitive environmental receptors; and (4) Other site-speciﬁc exposure or potential exposure to groundwater. 113.10(7) Assessment of corrective measures. a. Within 90 days of ﬁnding that any of the constituents listed in Appendix II have been detected at a statistically signiﬁcant level exceeding the groundwater protection standards deﬁned under paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i,” the owner or operator must initiate an assessment of corrective measures. Such an assessment must be completed and submitted to the department for review and approval within 180 days of the initial ﬁnding unless otherwise authorized or required by the department. b. The owner or operator must continue to monitor in accordance with the assessment monitoring program as speciﬁed in subrule 113.10(6).

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

99

c. The assessment shall include an analysis of the effectiveness of potential corrective measures in meeting all of the requirements and objectives of the remedy as described under subrule 113.10(8), addressing at least the following: (1) The performance, reliability, ease of implementation, and potential impacts of appropriate potential remedies, including safety impacts, cross-media impacts, and control of exposure to any residual contamination; (2) The time required to begin and complete the remedy; (3) The costs of remedy implementation; and (4) The institutional requirements such as state or local permit requirements or other environmental or public health requirements that may substantially affect implementation of the remedy(ies). d. Within 60 days of approval from the department of the assessment of corrective measures, the owner or operator must discuss the results of the corrective measures assessment, prior to the selection of a remedy, in a public meeting with interested and affected parties. The department may establish an alternative schedule for completing the public meeting requirement. Notice of public meeting shall be sent to all owners and occupiers of property adjacent to the permitted boundary of the facility, the department, and the department ﬁeld ofﬁce with jurisdiction over the facility. A copy of the minutes of this public meeting and the list of community concerns must be placed in the operating record and submitted to the department. 113.10(8) Selection of remedy. a. Based on the results of the corrective measures assessment conducted under subrule 113.10 (7), the owner or operator must select a remedy within 60 days of holding the public meeting that, at a minimum, meets the standards listed in paragraph 113.10(8)“b.” The department may establish an alternative schedule for selecting a remedy after holding the public meeting. The owner or operator must submit a report to the department, within 14 days of selecting a remedy, describing the selected remedy, stating that the report has been placed in the operating record, and explaining how the selected remedy meets the standards in paragraph 113.10(8)“b.” b. Remedies must: (1) Be protective of human health and the environment; IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.47 (2) Attain the groundwater protection standards speciﬁed pursuant to paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i”; (3) Control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, further releases of Appendix II constituents into the environment that may pose a threat to human health or the environment; and (4) Comply with standards for management of wastes as speciﬁed in paragraph 113.10(9)“d.” c. In selecting a remedy that meets the standards of paragraph 113.10(8)“b,” the owner or operator shall consider the following evaluation factors: (1) The long-term and short-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the potential remedy(ies), along with the degree of certainty that the remedy will prove successful based on consideration of the following: 1. Magnitude of reduction of existing risks; 2. Magnitude of residual risks in terms of likelihood of further releases due to waste remaining following implementation of a remedy; 3. The type and degree of long-term management required, including monitoring, operation, and maintenance;

100

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

4. Short-term risks that might be posed to the community, workers, or the environment during implementation of such a remedy, including potential threats to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, redisposal, or containment; 5. Time period until full protection is achieved; 6. Potential for exposure of humans and environmental receptors to remaining wastes, considering the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, redisposal, or containment; 7. Long-term reliability of the engineering and institutional controls; and 8. Potential need for replacement of the remedy. (2) The effectiveness of the remedy in controlling the source to reduce further releases based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The extent to which containment practices will reduce further releases; and 2. The extent to which treatment technologies may be used. (3) The ease or difﬁculty of implementing a potential remedy(ies) based on consideration of the following factors: 1. Degree of difﬁculty associated with constructing the technology; 2. Expected operational reliability of the technology; 3. Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals and permits from other agencies; 4. Availability of necessary equipment and specialists; and 5. Available capacity and location of needed treatment, storage, and disposal services. (4) Practicable capability of the owner or operator, including a consideration of technical and economic capabilities. (5) The degree to which community concerns, including but not limited to the concerns identiﬁed at the public meeting required pursuant to paragraph 113.10(7)“d,” are addressed by a potential remedy(ies). d. The owner or operator shall specify as part of the selected remedy a schedule(s) for initiating and completing remedial activities. Such a schedule must require the initiation of remedial activities within a reasonable period of time taking into consideration the factors set forth in subparagraphs 113.10(8)“d”(1) to (8). The owner or operator must consider the following factors in determining the schedule of remedial activities: (1) Extent and nature of contamination; Ch 113, p.48 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (2) Practical capabilities of remedial technologies in achieving compliance with groundwater protection standards established under paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i” and other objectives of the remedy; (3) Availability of treatment or disposal capacity for wastes managed during implementation of the remedy; (4) Desirability of utilizing alternative or experimental technologies that are not widely available, but which may offer signiﬁcant advantages over already available technologies in terms of effectiveness, reliability, safety, or ability to achieve remedial objectives; (5) Potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to contamination prior to completion of the remedy; (6) Resource value of the aquifer including: 1. Current and future uses; 2. Proximity and withdrawal rate of users;

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

101

3. Groundwater quantity and quality; 4. The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; 5. The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; 6. Groundwater removal and treatment costs; and 7. The cost and availability of alternative water supplies; (7) Practicable capability of the owner or operator; and (8) Other relevant factors. 113.10(9) Implementation of the corrective action plan. a. Based on the schedule established under paragraph 113.10(8)“d” for initiation and completion of remedial activities, the owner or operator must: (1) Establish and implement a corrective action groundwater monitoring program that: 1. At a minimum, meets the requirements of an assessment monitoring program under subrule 113.10(6); 2. Indicates the effectiveness of the corrective action remedy; and 3. Demonstrates compliance with groundwater protection standards pursuant to paragraph 113.10(9)“e”; (2) Implement the corrective action remedy selected under subrule 113.10(8); and (3) Take any interim measures necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Interim measures should, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with the objectives of and contribute to the performance of any remedy that may be required pursuant to subrule 113.10(8). The following factors must be considered by an owner or operator in determining whether interim measures are necessary: 1. Time period required to develop and implement a ﬁnal remedy; 2. Actual or potential exposure of nearby populations or environmental receptors to hazardous constituents; 3. Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or sensitive ecosystems; 4. Further degradation of the groundwater that may occur if remedial action is not initiated expeditiously; 5. Weather conditions that may cause hazardous constituents to migrate or be released; 6. Risk of ﬁre or explosion, or potential for exposure to hazardous constituents as a result of an accident or the failure of a container or handling system; and 7. Other factors that may pose threats to human health and the environment. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.49 b. An owner or operator may determine, based on information developed after implementation of the remedy has begun or other information, that compliance with the requirements of paragraph 113.10(8)“b” is not being achieved through the remedy selected. In such cases, the owner or operator must notify the department and implement other methods or techniques that could practicably achieve compliance with the requirements, unless the owner or operator makes the determination under paragraph 113.10(9)“c.” The notiﬁcation shall explain how the proposed alternative methods or techniques will meet the standards in paragraph 113.10(8)“b,” or the notiﬁcation shall indicate that the determination was made pursuant to paragraph 113.10(9)“c.” The notiﬁcation shall also specify a schedule(s) for implementing and completing the remedial activities to comply with paragraph 113.10(8)“b” or the alternative measures to comply with paragraph 113.10(9)“c.” Within 90 days of approval by the department for the proposed alternative methods or techniques or the

102

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

determination of impracticability, the owner or operator shall implement the proposed alternative methods or techniques meeting the standards of paragraph 113.10(8)“b” or implement alternative measures meeting the requirements of subparagraphs 113.10(9)“c” (2) and (3). c. If the owner or operator determines that compliance with requirements under paragraph 113.10(8)“b” cannot be practicably achieved with any currently available methods, the owner or operator must: (1) Obtain certiﬁcation of a qualiﬁed groundwater scientist and approval by the department that compliance with requirements under paragraph 113.10(8)“b” cannot be practicably achieved with any currently available methods; (2) Implement alternate measures to control exposure of humans or the environment to residual contamination, as necessary to protect human health and the environment; (3) Implement alternate measures for control of the sources of contamination, or for removal or decontamination of equipment, units, devices, or structures that are: 1. Technically practicable; and 2. Consistent with the overall objective of the remedy; and (4) Notify the department within 14 days that a report justifying the alternate measures prior to implementation has been placed in the operating record. d. All solid wastes that are managed pursuant to a remedy required under subrule 113.10(8), or an interim measure required under subparagraph 113.10(9)“a”(3), shall be managed in a manner: (1) That is protective of human health and the environment; and (2) That complies with applicable RCRA, state and local requirements. e. Remedies selected pursuant to subrule 113.10(8) shall be considered complete when: (1) The owner or operator complies with the groundwater protection standards established under paragraph 113.10(6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i” at all points within the plume of contamination that lie beyond the groundwater monitoring well system established under subrule 113.10(2). (2) Compliance with the groundwater protection standards established under paragraph 113.10 (6)“h” or 113.10(6)“i” has been achieved by demonstrating that concentrations of Appendix II constituents have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s) for a period of three consecutive years using the statistical procedures and performance standards in paragraphs 113.10(4)“g” and 113.10(4)“h.” The department may specify an alternative length of time during which the owner or operator must demonstrate that concentrations of Appendix II constituents have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s), taking into consideration: 1. The extent and concentration of the release(s); 2. The behavior characteristics of the hazardous constituents in the groundwater; 3. The accuracy of monitoring or modeling techniques, including any seasonal, meteorological, or other environmental variables that may affect accuracy; and 4. The characteristics of the groundwater. (3) All actions required by the department to complete the remedy have been satisﬁed. Ch 113, p.50 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 f. Upon completion of the remedy, the owner or operator must notify the department within 14 days that a certiﬁcation has been placed in the operating record verifying that the remedy has been completed in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 113.10(9)“e.” The certiﬁcation must be signed by the owner or operator and by a qualiﬁed groundwater scientist and approved by the department.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

103

g. When, upon completion of the certiﬁcation, the owner or operator determines that the corrective action remedy has been completed in accordance with the requirements under paragraph 113.10(9)“e,” the owner or operator shall be released from the requirements for ﬁnancial assurance for corrective action pursuant to subrule 113.14(5). 113.10(10) Annual water quality reports. The owner or operator shall submit an annual report to the department detailing the water quality monitoring sampling locations and results, assessments, selection of remedies, implementation of corrective action, and the results of corrective action remedies to address SSIs, if any, during the previous year. This report shall include a site map that delineates all monitoring points where water quality samples were taken, and plumes of contamination, if any. The report shall contain a narrative explaining and interpreting all of the data collected during the previous year. The report shall be due each year on a date set by the department in the facility’s permit. 567—113.11(455B,455D) Record-keeping and reporting requirements. The primary purpose of the record-keeping and reporting activities is to verify compliance with this chapter and to document the construction and operations of the facility. The department can set alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notiﬁcation requirements as speciﬁed in subrules 113.11(1) and 113.11(2), except for the notiﬁcation requirements in paragraph 113.6(2)“a” and numbered paragraph 113.10(6)“g”(1)“3.” All MSWLFs shall comply with the following record-keeping and reporting requirements. 113.11(1) Record keeping. The owner or operator of an MSWLF unit must record and retain near the facility in an operating record or in an alternative location approved by the department the following information as it becomes available: a. Permit application, permit renewal and permit modiﬁcation application materials pursuant to rule 113.5(455B); b. The site exploration and characterization reports pursuant to subrule 113.6(4); c. Design and construction plans and speciﬁcations, and related analyses and documents, pursuant to rule 113.7(455B). The QC&A ﬁnal reports, and related analyses and documents, pursuant to paragraph 113.7(6)“d”; d. Inspection records, training procedures, and notiﬁcation procedures required in rule 113.8 (455B); e. Any MSWLF unit design documentation for placement of leachate or gas condensate in an MSWLF unit as required under numbered paragraphs 113.8(1)“b”(3)“2” and “3”; f. Gas monitoring results from monitoring and any remediation plans required by rule 113.9 (455B); g. Any demonstration, certiﬁcation, ﬁnding, monitoring, testing, or analytical data required by rule 113.10(455B); h. Closure and postclosure care plans and any monitoring, testing, or analytical data as required by rules 113.12(455B) and 113.13(455B); and i. Any cost estimates and ﬁnancial assurance documentation required by this chapter. 113.11(2) Reporting requirements. The owner or operator must notify the department when the documents required in subrule 113.11(1) have been placed in the operating record. All information contained in the operating record must be furnished upon request to the department and be made available at all reasonable times for inspection by the department.

104

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.51 567—113.12(455B) Closure criteria. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following closure requirements. 113.12(1) Owners or operators of all MSWLF units must install a ﬁnal cover system that is designed to minimize inﬁltration and erosion. The ﬁnal cover system must be designed and constructed to: a. Have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system (for MSWLFs with some type of liner) or have a permeability no greater than 1 107 cm/sec, whichever is less; b. Minimize inﬁltration through the closed MSWLF by the use of an inﬁltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 inches of compacted earthen material; c. Minimize erosion of the ﬁnal cover by the use of an erosion layer that contains a minimum of 24 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth; d. Have an inﬁltration layer and erosion layer that are a combined minimum of 42 inches of earthen material at all locations over the closed MSWLF unit; and e. Have a slope between 5 percent and 25 percent. Steeper slopes may be used if it is demonstrated that a steeper slope is unlikely to adversely affect ﬁnal cover system integrity. 113.12(2) The department may approve an alternative ﬁnal cover design that includes: a. An inﬁltration layer that achieves reduction in inﬁltration equivalent to the inﬁltration layer speciﬁed in paragraphs 113.12(1)“a” and 113.12(1)“b”; and b. An erosion layer that provides protection from wind and water erosion equivalent to the erosion layer speciﬁed in paragraphs 113.12(1)“c” and 113.12(1)“d.” 113.12(3) The owner or operator must prepare a written closure plan that describes the steps necessary to close all MSWLF units at any point during the active life in accordance with the cover design requirements in subrule 113.12(1) or 113.12(2), as applicable. The closure plan, at a minimum, must include the following information: a. A description of the ﬁnal cover including source, volume, and characteristics of cover material, designed in accordance with subrule 113.12(1) or 113.12(2) and the methods and procedures to be used to install the cover; b. An estimate of the largest area of the MSWLF unit requiring a ﬁnal cover, as required under subrule 113.12(1) or 113.12(2), at any time during the active life; c. An estimate of the maximum inventory of wastes on site over the active life of the landﬁll facility; and d. A schedule for completing all activities necessary to satisfy the closure criteria in rule 113.12 (455B). 113.12(4) The owner or operator must notify the department that the closure plan has been placed in the operating record no later than the initial receipt of waste in a new MSWLF unit. 113.12(5) At least 180 days prior to beginning closure of each MSWLF unit as speciﬁed in subrule 113.12(6), an owner or operator must notify the department of the intent to close the MSWLF unit, and that a notice of the intent to close the unit has been placed in the operating record. If the MSWLF facility will no longer be accepting MSW for disposal, then the owner or operator must also notify all local governments utilizing the facility and post a public notice of the intent to close and no longer to accept MSW.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

105

113.12(6) The owner or operator must begin closure activities of each MSWLF unit: a. No later than 30 days after the date on which the MSWLF unit receives the known ﬁnal receipt of wastes; or Ch 113, p.52 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 b. If the MSWLF unit has remaining capacity and there is a reasonable likelihood that the MSWLF unit will receive additional wastes, no later than one year after the most recent receipt of wastes. Extensions beyond the one-year deadline for beginning closure may be granted by the department if the owner or operator demonstrates that the MSWLF unit has the capacity to receive additional wastes and the owner or operator has taken and will continue to take all steps necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment from the unclosed MSWLF unit. 113.12(7) The owner or operator of all MSWLF units must complete closure activities of each MSWLF unit in accordance with the closure plan within 180 days following the beginning of closure as speciﬁed in subrule 113.12(6). Extensions of the closure period may be granted by the department if the owner or operator demonstrates that closure will, of necessity, take longer than 180 days and that the owner or operator has taken and will continue to take all steps to prevent threats to human health and the environment from the unclosed MSWLF unit. 113.12(8) Following closure of each MSWLF unit, the owner or operator must submit to the department certiﬁcation, signed by an independent professional engineer (P.E.) registered in Iowa, verifying that closure has been completed in accordance with the closure plan. Upon approval by the department, the certiﬁcation shall be placed in the operating record. 113.12(9) Following closure of all MSWLF units, the owner or operator must record a notation on the deed to the landﬁll facility property, or some other instrument that is normally examined during title search in lieu of a deed notiﬁcation, and notify the department that the notation has been recorded and a copy has been placed in the operating record. The notation on the deed must in perpetuity notify any potential purchaser of the property that: a. The land has been used as a landﬁll facility; and b. Its use is restricted under paragraph 113.13(3)“c.” 113.12(10) The owner or operator may request permission from the department to remove the notation from the deed if all wastes are removed from the facility. 567—113.13(455B) Postclosure care requirements. All MSWLFs shall comply with the following postclosure care requirements. 113.13(1) Following closure of each MSWLF unit, the owner or operator must conduct postclosure care. Postclosure care must be conducted for 30 years, except as provided under subrule 113.13(2), and consist of at least the following: a. Maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of any ﬁnal cover, including making repairs to the cover as necessary to correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other events, and preventing run-on and runoff from eroding or otherwise damaging the ﬁnal cover; b. Maintaining and operating the leachate collection system in accordance with the requirements in paragraphs 113.7(5)“b” and 113.8(3)“i,” if applicable. The department may allow the owner or operator to stop managing leachate if the owner or operator demonstrates that leachate no longer poses a threat to human health and the environment; c. Monitoring the groundwater in accordance with the requirements of rule 113.10(455B) and maintaining the groundwater monitoring system; and

106

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

d. Maintaining and operating the gas monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of rule 113.9(455B). 113.13(2) The length of the postclosure care period may be: a. Decreased by the department if the owner or operator demonstrates that the reduced period is sufﬁcient to protect human health and the environment and this demonstration is approved by the department; or b. Increased by the department if the department determines that the lengthened period is necessary to protect human health and the environment. IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.53 113.13(3) The owner or operator of all MSWLF units must prepare a written postclosure plan that includes, at a minimum, the following information: a. A description of the monitoring and maintenance activities required in subrule 113.13(1) for each MSWLF unit, and the frequency at which these activities will be performed; b. Name, address, and telephone number of the person or ofﬁce to contact about the facility during the postclosure period; and c. A description of the planned uses of the property during the postclosure period. Postclosure use of the property shall not disturb the integrity of the ﬁnal cover, liner(s), or any other components of the containment system, or the function of the monitoring systems unless necessary to comply with the requirements in this chapter. The department may approve any other disturbance if the owner or operator demonstrates that disturbance of the ﬁnal cover, liner or other component of the containment system, including any removal of waste, will not increase the potential threat to human health or the environment. 113.13(4) The owner or operator must notify the department that a postclosure plan has been prepared and placed in the operating record by the date of initial receipt of waste. 113.13(5) Following completion of the postclosure care period for each MSWLF unit, the owner or operator must submit to the department a certiﬁcation, signed by an independent professional engineer (P.E.) registered in Iowa, verifying that postclosure care has been completed in accordance with the postclosure plan. Upon department approval, the certiﬁcation shall be placed in the operating record. 113.14(9) Amount of required ﬁnancial assurance. A ﬁnancial assurance mechanism established pursuant to subrule 113.14(6) shall be in the amount of the third-party cost estimates required by subrules 113.14(3), 113.14(4), and 113.14(5) except that the amount of the ﬁnancial assurance may be reduced by the sum of the cash balance in a trust fund or local government dedicated fund established to comply with subrule 113.14(8) plus the current value of investments held by said trust fund or local government dedicated fund if invested in one or more of the investments listed in Iowa Code section 12B.10(5). 567—113.15(455B,455D) Variances. A request for a variance to this chapter shall be submitted in writing pursuant to 561—Chapter 10. Some provisions of this chapter are minimum standards required by federal law (see 40 CFR 258), and variances to such provisions shall not be granted unless they are as protective as the applicable minimum federal standards.

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

Appendix I

107

Constituents for Detection Monitoring1

Inorganic Constituents: (1) Antimony (Total) (2) Arsenic (Total) (3) Barium (Total) (4) Beryllium (Total) (5) Cadmium (Total) (6) Chromium (Total) (7) Cobalt (Total) (8) Copper (Total) (9) Lead (Total) (10) Nickel (Total) (11) Selenium (Total) (12) Silver (Total) (13) Thallium (Total) (14) Vanadium (Total) (15) Zinc (Total) Organic Constituents: (16) Acetone 67-64-1 (17) Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 (18) Benzene 71-43-2 (19) Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 (20) Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 (21) Bromoform; Tribromomethane 75-25-2 (22) Carbon disulﬁde 75-15-0 (23) Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 (24) Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 (25) Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride 75-00-3 (26) Chloroform; Trichloromethane 67-66-3 (27) Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 (28) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP 96-12-8IAC 7/4/07Ch 113, p.70 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07 (29) 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB 106-93-4 (30) o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 (31) p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 (32) trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 110-57-6 (33) 1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethylidene chloride 75-34-3 (34) 1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride 107-06-2

108 (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62)

FROM CURBSIDE TO LANDFILL

1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene chloride 75-35-4 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride 78-87-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 (42) 2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl ketone 591-78-6 Methyl bromide; Bromomethane 74-83-9 Methyl chloride; Chloromethane 74-87-3 Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane 74-95-3 Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane 75-09-2 Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK; 2-Butanone 78-93-3 Methyl iodide; Iodomethane 74-88-4 (49) 4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1 Styrene 100-42-5 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Perchloroethylene 127-18-4 Toluene 108-88-3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform 71-55-6 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene 79-01-6 Trichloroﬂuoromethane; CFC-11 75-69-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 96-18-4 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 Xylenes 1330-20-7

Notes: 1 This list contains 47 volatile organics for which possible analytical procedures provided in EPA Report SW-846 ”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,” third edition, November 1986, as revised December 1987, includes Method 8260; and 15 metals for which SW-846 provides either Method 6010 or a method from the 7000 series of methods. 2 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientiﬁc publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals. 3 Chemical Abstracts Service registry number. Where ”Total” is entered, all species in the groundwater that contain this element are included.

IAC 7/4/07 Environmental Protection[567] Ch 113, p.71

109

CAS RN3

83-32-9 208-96-8 67-64-1 75-05-8 98-86-2 53-96-3 107-02-8 107-13-1 309-00-2

107-05-1 92-67-1 120-12-7 (Total) (Total) (Total) 71-43-2 56-55-3 205-99-2 207-08-9 191-24-2 50-32-8 100-51-6

Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetone Acetonitrile; Methyl cyanide Acetophenone 2-Acetylaminoﬂuorene; 2-AAF Acrolein Acrylonitrile Aldrin

Allyl chloride 4-Aminobiphenyl Anthracene Antimony Arsenic Barium Benzene Benzo[a]anthracene;Benzanthracene Benzo[b]ﬂuoranthene Benzo[k]ﬂuoranthene Benzo[ghi]perylene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzyl alcohol

Acenaphthylene, 1,2-dihydroAcenaphthylene 2-Propanone Acetonitrile Ethanone, 1-phenylAcetamide, N-9H-ﬂuoren-2-yl2-Propenal 2-Propenenitrile 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4, 10,10-hexachloro1,4,4a,5,8,8ahexahydro(1I,4I,4aJ,5I,8I,8aJ)1-Propene, 3-chloro[1,11-Biphenyl]-4-amine Anthracene Antimony Arsenic Barium Benzene Benz[a]anthracene Benz[e]acephenanthrylene Benzo[k]ﬂuoranthene Benzo[ghi]perylene Benzo[a]pyrene Benzenemethanol

Chemical abstracts index name4

List of Hazardous Inorganic and Organic Constituents1

Common Name2

Appendix II

8010, 8260 8270 8100, 8270 6010, 7040, 7041 6010, 7060, 7061 6010, 7080 8020, 8021, 8260 8100, 8270 8100, 8270 8100, 8270 8100, 8270 8100, 8270 8270

8100, 8270 8100, 8270 8260 8015 8270 8270 8030, 8260 8030, 8260 8080, 8270

Suggested Method5

(continued)

5, 10 20 200, 10 300, 2000, 30 500, 10, 20 20, 1000 2, 0.1, 5 200, 10 200, 10 200, 10 200, 10 200, 10 20

200, 10 200, 10 100 100 10 20 5, 100 5, 200 0.05, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

110

111-91-1

Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane

Bromochloromethane; Chlorobromomethane Bromodichloromethane; Dibromochloromethane Bromoform; Tribromomethane 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Butyl benzyl phthalate; Benzyl butyl phthalate

Methane, bromochloroMethane, bromodichloroMethane, tribromoBenzene, 1-bromo-4-phenoxy1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid,

74-97-5

75-27-4 75-25-2 101-55-3

85-68-7

Propane, 2,21-oxybis[1-chloro1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester

58-89-9

gamma-BHC; Lindane

108-60-1 117-81-7

319-86-8

delta-BHC

Ethane, 1,11-oxybis[2-chloro-

319-85-7

beta-BHC

Beryllium Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6hexachloro-,(1I,2I,3J,4I,5J,6J)Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6hexachloro-,(1I,2J,3I,4J,5I,6J)Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6hexachloro-,(1I,2I,3I,4J,5I,6J)Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6hexachloro-,(1I,2I,3J,4I,5I,6J)Ethane, 1,11-[methylenebis(oxy)] bis[2-chloro-

Chemical abstracts index name4

111-44-4

(Total) 319-84-6

Beryllium alpha-BHC

Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether; Dichloroethyl ether Bis-(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) ether; 2,21-Dichlorodiisopropyl ether; DCIP, see Note 7 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

CAS RN3

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

8060, 8270

8010, 8021, 8260 8010, 8021, 8260 8110, 8270

8021, 8260

8110, 8270 8060

8110, 8270

8110, 8270

8080, 8270

8080, 8270

8080, 8270

6010, 7090, 7091 8080, 8270

Suggested Method5

5, 10

1, 0.2, 5 2, 15, 5 25, 10

0.1, 5

10, 10 20

3, 10

5, 10

0.05, 20

0.1, 20

0.05, 20

3, 50, 2 0.05, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

111

(Total) 75-15-0 56-23-5 4,7-Methano-1Hindene, 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,

106-47-8 108-90-7

510-15-6

59-50-7 75-00-3 67-66-3 91-58-7 95-57-8 7005-72-3 126-99-8 (Total) 218-01-9 (Total) (Total) 108-39-4 95-48-7 106-44-5 57-12-5

Cadmium Carbon disulﬁde Carbon tetrachloride Chlordane See Note 8

p-Chloroaniline Chlorobenzene

Chlorobenzilate

p-Chloro-m-cresol; 4-Chloro3-methylphenol Chloroethane; Ethyl chloride Chloroform; Trichloromethane 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Chloroprene Chromium Chrysene Cobalt Copper m-Cresol; 3-methylphenol o-Cresol; 2-methylphenol p-Cresol; 4-methylphenol Cyanide Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methylEthane, chloroMethane, trichloroNaphthalene, 2-chloroPhenol, 2-chloroBenzene, 1-chloro-4-phenoxy1,3-Butadiene, 2-chloroChromium Chrysene Cobalt Copper Phenol, 3-methylPhenol, 2-methylPhenol, 4-methylCyanide

Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chlor-I(4- chlorophenyl)-I-hydroxy-, ethyl ester

8-octachloro-2,3,3a,4,7,7ahexahydroBenzenamine, 4-chloroBenzene, chloro-

butylphenylmethyl ester Cadmium Carbon disulﬁde Methane, tetrachloro-

8040, 8270 8010, 8021, 8260 8010, 8021, 8260 8120, 8270 8040, 8270 8110, 8270 8010, 8260 6010, 7190, 7191 8100, 8270 6010, 7200, 7201 6010, 7210, 7211 8270 8270 8270 9010

8080, 8270 8270 8010, 8020, 8021, 8260 22, 0.1, 5 8270

6010, 7130, 7131 8260 8010, 8021, 8260

(continued)

5, 20 51, 10 0.5, 0.2, 5 10, 10 5, 10 40, 10 50, 20 70, 500, 10 200, 10 70, 500, 10 60, 200, 10 10 10 10 200

10

0.1, 50 20

40, 50, 1 100 1, 0.1, 10

112

541-73-1

m-Dichlorobenzene; 1,3-Dichlorobenzene

Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-

Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-

95-50-1

o-Dichlorobenzene; 1,2-Dichlorobenzene

53-70-3 132-64-9

Ethane, 1,2-dibromo1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester

2303-16-4

Diallate

106-93-4 84-74-2

50-29-3

4,41-DDT

Methane, dibromochloroPropane, 1,2-dibrome-3-chloro-

72-55-9

4,41-DDE

Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)Benzene 1,11-(2,2dichloroethyl-idene) bis[4-chloroBenzene, 1,11(dichloroethyenyl-idene) bis[4-chloroBenzene, 1,11-(2,2,2trichloroethylidene)bis[4-chloroCarbamothioic acid, bis(1methyl-ethyl)-, S-(2,3dichloro-2-propenyl) ester Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Dibenzofuran

124-48-1 96-12-8

94-75-7 72-54-8

2,4-D; 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 4,41-DDD

Chemical abstracts index name4

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Dibenzofuran Dibromochloromethane; Chlorodibromomethane 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane; DBCP 1,2-Dibromoethane; Ethylene dibromide; EDB Di-n-butyl phthalate

CAS RN3

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

8010, 8020, 8021

8010, 8020, 8021 8120, 8260, 8270

8011, 8021, 8260 8060, 8270

8010, 8021, 8260 8011, 8021, 8260

8100, 8270 8270

8270

8080, 8270

8080, 8270

8150 8080, 8270

Suggested Method5

55, 0.2, 10

25, 0.5, 10 5, 10

0.1, 10, 5 5, 10

1, 0.3, 5 0.1, 30, 25

200, 10 10

10

0.1, 10

0.05, 10

10 0.1, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

113

[1,11-Biphenyl]-4,41-diamine, 3,31-dichloro2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)Methane, dichlorodiﬂuoroEthane, 1,1-dichloroEthane, 1,1-dichloro-

Ethene, 1,1-dichloroEthene, 1,2-dichloro-, (Z)Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (E)Phenol, 2,4-dichloroPhenol, 2,6-dichloroPropane, 1,2-dichloroPropane, 1,3-dichloroPropane, 2,2-dichloro1-Propene, 1,1-dichloro-

91-94-1

110-57-6

75-71-8

75-34-3

107-06-2

75-35-4

156-59-2

156-60-5 120-83-2 87-65-0

78-87-5

142-28-9

594-20-7 563-58-6

3,31-Dichlorobenzidine

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene Dichlorodiﬂuoromethane; CFC 12 1,1-Dichloroethane; Ethyldidene chloride 1,2-Dichloroethane; Ethylene dichloride 1,1-Dichloroethylene; 1,1-Dichloroethene; Vinylidene chloride cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene; trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,6-Dichlorophenol 1,2-Dichloropropane; Propylene dichloride 1,3-Dichloropropane; Trimethylene dichloride 2,2-Dichloropropane; Isopropylidene chloride 1,1-Dichloropropene

Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-

106-46-7

p-Dichlorobenzene; 1,4-Dichlorobenzene

8021, 8260 8021, 8260

8021, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260 8040, 8270 8270

8021, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260

8010,8021, 8260

8010, 8021,8260

8021,8260

8260

8010, 8020, 8021 8120, 8260, 8270 8270

8120, 8260, 8270

(continued)

0.5, 15 0.2, 5

0.3, 5

0.5, 0.05, 5

1, 0.5, 5 5, 10 10

0.2, 5

1, 0.5, 5

0.5, 0.3, 5

1, 0.5, 5

0.5, 5

100

25, 0.1, 15 5, 10 20

5, 10

114

CAS RN3

297-97-2

3, 20

10 10 10 5, 10 5, 10 20 150, 50 150, 50

8141, 8270

8270 8270 8270 8040, 8270 8060, 8270 8270 8040, 8270 8040, 8270

0.05, 10 5, 10

5, 20

8080, 8270 8060, 8270

(1aI,2J,2aI,3J,6J,6aI,7J, 7aI)1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester

20, 10 5, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

8141, 8270

8010, 8260 8010, 8260

Suggested Method5

1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (Z)1-Propene, 1,3-dichloro-, (E)-

Chemical abstracts index name4

Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0diethyl 0-pyrazinyl ester Dimethoate 60-51-5 Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0dimethyl S- [2-(methylamino)2-oxoethyl] ester p-(Dimethylamino)azobenzene 60-11-7 Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4(phenylazo)7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene 57-97-6 Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12dimethyl3,31-Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7 [1,11-Biphenyl]-4,41-diamine, 3,31-dimethyl2,4-Dimethylphenol;m-Xylenol 105-67-9 Phenol, 2,4-dimethylDimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester m-Dinitrobenzene 99-65-0 Benzene, 1,3-dinitro4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 4,6Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-

0,0-Diethyl 0-2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate; Thionazin

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 Dieldrin 60-57-1 2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexa,chloro-1a, 2,2a,3,6,6a,7, 7a-octahydro-, Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

115

Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4dinitroBenzene, 2-methyl-1,3-dinitroPhenol, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6dinitro-1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester Benzenamine, N-phenylPhosphorodithioic acid, 0,0diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl]ester 6,9-Methano-2,4,3benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide 6,9-Methano-2,4,3benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide,(3I,5aI,6J,9J,9aI)6,9-Methano-2,4,3benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-3Dioxide 2,7:3,6-Dimethanonaphth[2,3-b] oxirene, 3,4,5,6,9,9-hexachloro1a,2,2a,3,6,6a, 7,7a-octahydro-, (1aI,2J,2aJ,3I,6I,6aJ,7J,7aI)1,2,4-Methenocyclopenta[cd]pentalen

121-14-2

606-20-2

88-85-7 117-84-0

122-39-4 298-04-4

959-98-8

33213-65-9

1031-07-8

72-20-8

7421-93-4

2,4-Dinitrotoluene

2,6-Dinitrotoluene Dinoseb; DNBP; 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol Di-n-octyl phthalate

Diphenylamine Disulfoton

Endosulfan I

Endosulfan II

Endosulfan sulfate

Endrin

Endrin aldehyde

8080, 8270

8080, 8270

8080, 8270

8080, 8270 8080, 8270

8270 8140, 8141, 8270

8150, 8270 8060, 8270

8090, 8270

8090, 8270

(continued)

0.2, 10

0.1, 20

0.5, 10

0.1, 20 0.05, 20

10 2, 0.5, 10

1, 20 30, 10

0.1, 10

0.2, 10

116

CAS RN3

100-41-4 97-63-2

62-50-0 52-85-7

206-44-0 86-73-7 76-44-8

1024-57-3

118-74-1 87-68-3

77-47-4

Common Name2

Ethylbenzene Ethyl methacrylate

Ethyl methanesulfonate Famphur

Fluoranthene Fluorene Heptachlor

Heptachlor epoxide

Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

4-hexachloro1,3-Cyclopentadiene,

e- 5-carboxaldehyde,2,2a,3, 3,4,7-hexachlorodecahydro-, (1I,2J, 2aJ,4J,4aJ,5J,6aJ,6bJ,7R*)Benzene, ethyl2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester Phosphorothioic acid, 0-[4[(dimethyl-amino) sulfonyl]phenyl] 0,0-dimethyl ester Fluoranthene 9H-Fluorene 4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7, 8,8- heptachloro3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro2,5-Methano-2H-indeno[1,2-b] oxirene, 2,3,4,5,6,7,7heptachloro1a,1b,5,5a,6,6a-hexahydro-, (1aI,1bJ, 2I, 5I,5aJ, 6J, 6aI) Benzene, hexachloro1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,

Chemical abstracts index name4

8120, 8270

8120, 8270 8021, 8120, 8260, 8270

8080, 8270

8100, 8270 8100,8270 8080, 8270

8270 8270

8020, 8221,8260 8015, 8260, 8270

Suggested Method5

5, 10

0.5, 10 0.5, 5, 10, 10

1, 10

200, 10 200, 10 0.05, 10

20 20

2, 0.05, 5 5, 10, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

117

67-72-1 1888-71-7

591-78-6 193-39-5 78-83-1 465-73-6

78-59-1

120-58-1 143-50-0

(Total) (Total) 126-98-7 91-80-5

72-43-5

74-83-9

Hexachloroethane Hexachloropropene

2-Hexanone; Methyl butyl Ketone Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isobutyl alcohol Isodrin

Isophorone

Isosafrole Kepone

Lead Mercury Methacrylonitrile Methapyrilene

Methoxychlor

Methyl bromide; Bromomethane Methyl chloride;

Methane, bromo-

2-Hexanone Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1-Propanol, 2-methyl1,4,5,8Dimethanonaphthalene,1,2, 3,4, 10,10- hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8, 8ahexahydro(1I,4I,4aJ,5J,8J,8aJ)2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 3,5,5trimethyl1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(1-propenyl)1,3,4-Metheno-2Hcyclobuta[cd] pentalen-2-one,1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5, 5a,5b,6-decachlorooctahydroLead Mercury 2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl1,2-Ethanediamine, N.NdimethylN1-2-pyridinyl-N1/2-thienylmethyl)Benzene,1,11-(2,2,2, trichloroethylidene)bis[4-methoxy-

1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloroEthane, hexachloro1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3hexachloro-

8010,8021

8080, 8270

6010, 7420, 7421 7470 8015, 8260 8270

8270 8270

8090, 8270

8260 8100, 8270 8015, 8240 8270, 8260

8120, 8260, 8270 8270

(continued)

20, 10

2, 10

400, 1000,10 2 5, 100 100

10 20

60, 10

50 200, 10 50, 100 20, 10

0.5, 10,10 10

118 Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl

2-Pentanone, 4-methyl-

298-00-0

108-10-1

Methane, dichloro-

75-09-2

91-20-3

130-15-4 134-32-7

Naphthalene

1,4-Naphthoquinone 1-Naphthylamine

1,4-Naphthalenedione 1-Naphthalenamine

Naphthalene

Methane, dibromo-

74-95-3

66-27-3 91-57-6

Methane, iodo2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, methyl ester Methanesulfonic acid, methyl ester Naphthalene, 2-methyl-

74-88-4 80-62-6

Methylene bromide; Dibromomethane Methylene chloride; Dichloromethane

Methyl methanesulfonate 2-Methylnaphthalene Methyl parathion; Parathion methyl 4-Methyl-2-pentanone; Methyl isobutyl ketone

2-Butanone

Methane, chloroBenz[j]aceanthrylene, 1,2dihydro- 3-methyl-

Chemical abstracts index name4

78-93-3

74-87-3 56-49-5

Chloromethane 3-Methylcholanthrene

Methyl ethyl ketone; MEK;2-Butanone Methyl iodide; Iodomethane Methyl methacrylate

CAS RN3

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

8021, 8100, 8260, 8270 8270 8270

8010, 8021, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260

8015, 8260

8140, 8141, 8270

8270 8270

8010, 8260 8015, 8260

8015, 8260

8010, 8021 8270

Suggested Method5

10 10

0.5,200, 5, 10

5, 0.2, 10

15, 20,10

5, 100

0.5, 1, 10

10 10

40, 10 2, 30

10, 100

1, 0.3 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

119

2-Naphthalenamine Nickel Benzenamine, 2-nitroBenzenamine, 3-nitroBenzenamine, 4-nitroBenzene, nitroPhenol, 2-nitroPhenol, 4-nitro1-Butanamine, N-butyl-NnitrosoEthanamine, N-ethyl-NnitrosoMethanamine, N-methyl-NnitrosoBenzenamine, N-nitroso-Nphenyl-

1-Propanamine, N-nitroso-NEthanamine, N-methyl-NnitrosoPiperidine, 1-nitrosoPyrrolidine, 1-nitrosoBenzenamine, 2-methyl-5-nitroPhosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0(4-nitrophenyl) ester Benzene, pentachloroBenzene, pentachloronitro-

91-59-8 (Total)

88-74-4

99-09-2

100-01-6 98-95-3

88-75-5

100-02-7 924-16-3 55-18-5 62-75-9 86-30-6

621-64-7 10595-95-6 100-75-4 930-55-2 99-55-8 56-38-2

608-93-5 82-68-8

2-Naphthylamine Nickel o-Nitroaniline; 2-Nitroaniline m-Nitroaniline; 3-Nitroanile p-Nitroaniline; 4-Nitroaniline Nitrobenzene o-Nitrophenol; 2-Nitrophenol p-Nitrophenol; 4-Nitrophenol N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine N-Nitrosodiethylamine N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitrosodipropylamine; N-Nitroso-N-dipropylamine; Di-n-propylnitrosamine propylN-Nitrosomethylethalamine N-Nitrosopiperidine N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 5-Nitro-o-toluidine Parathion

Pentachlorobenzene Pentachloronitrobenzene

8270 8270

8070 8270 8270 8270 8270 8141, 8270

8040, 8270 8270 8270 8070 8070

8040, 8270

8270 8090, 8270

8270

8270

8270 6010, 7520

10 20 (continued)

10 10 20 40 10 0.5, 10

10, 50 10 20 2 5

5, 10

20 40, 10

50

50

10 150, 400

120 Propanoic acid, 2-(2,4,5trichlorophenoxy)Benzene, ethenylSulﬁde

Acetic acid, (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-

See Note 9

23950-58-5

107-12-0 129-00-0 94-59-7 (Total) (Total)

93-72-1

100-42-5 18496-25-8

93-76-5 95-94-3

Polychlorinated biphenyls; PCBs; Aroclors

Pronamide

Propionitrile; Ethyl cyanide Pyrene Safrole Selenium Silver

Silvex; 2,4,5-TP

Styrene Sulﬁde 2,4,5-T; 2,4,5Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene

Propanenitrile Pyrene 1,3-Benzodioxole, 5-(2-propenyl)Selenium Silver

1,1[prime]-Biphenyl, Chloroderivatives Benzamide, 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1dimethyl-2-propynyl)-

Phenol, pentachloroAcetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenl) Phenanthrene Phenol 1,4-Benzenediamine Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)methyl]ester

87-86-5 62-44-2 85-01-8 108-95-2 106-50-3 298-02-2

Pentachlorophenol Phenacetin Phenanthrene Phenol p-Phenylenediamine Phorate

Chemical abstracts index name4

CAS RN3

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

8150 8270

8020, 8021, 8260 9030, 4000

8150

8015, 8260 8100, 8270 8270 6010, 7740, 7741 6010, 7760, 7761

8080, 8270 8270

8040, 8270 8270 8100, 8270 8040 8270 8140, 8141, 8270

Suggested Method5

2 10

1, 0.1, 10

2

60, 150 200, 10 10 750, 20, 20 70, 100, 10

50, 200 10

5, 50 20 200, 10 1 10 2, 0.5, 10

PQL, (mg/L)6

121

sym-Trinitrobenzene Vanadium Vinyl acetate Vinyl chloride; Chloroethene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane; Methylchloroform 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene; Trichloroethene Trichloroﬂuoromethane; CFC-11 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene; Tetrachloroethene; Perchloroethylene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Thallium Tin Toluene o-Toluidine Toxaphene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloroEthane, 1,1,2-trichloroEthene, trichloroMethane, trichloroﬂuoroPhenol, 2,4,5-trichloroPhenol, 2,4,6-trichloroPropane, 1,2,3-trichloroPhosphorothioic acid, 0,0,0triethyl ester Benzene, 1,3,5-trinitroVanadium Acetic acid, ethenyl ester Ethene, chloro-

79-01-6

75-69-4 95-95-4 88-06-2 96-18-4 126-68-1

99-35-4 (Total) 108-05-4

75-01-4

Ethene, tetrachloroPhenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloroThallium Tin Benzene, methylBenzenamine, 2-methylToxaphene Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-

127-18-4 58-90-2 (Total) (Total) 108-88-3 95-53-4 See Note 10 120-82-1

71-55-6 79-00-5

Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroEthane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-

630-20-6 79-34-5

8010, 8021, 8260

8270 6010, 7910,7911 8260

8010, 8021, 8260 8270 8040, 8270 8010, 8021, 8260 8270

8010, 8021, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260 8010, 8260

8010, 8021, 8260 8270 6010, 7840,7841 6010 8020, 8021, 8260 8270 8080 8021, 8120, 8260, 8270

8010, 8021, 8260 8010, 8021, 8260

(continued)

2, 0.4, 10

10 80, 2000, 40 50

10, 0.3, 5 10 5, 10 10, 5, 15 10

1, 0.2, 5

0.3, 0.3, 5 0.2, 5

0.5, 0.5, 5 10 400, 1000, 10 40 2, 0.1, 5 10 2 0.3, 0.5, 10, 10

5, 0.05, 5 0.5, 0.1, 5

122

(total) See Note 11 (Total)

Xylene Zinc

Benzene, dimethylZinc

Chemical abstracts index name4 8020, 8021, 8260 6010, 7950, 7951

Suggested Method5 5, 0.2, 5 20, 50, 0.5

PQL, (mg/L)6

Notes: 1 The regulatory requirements pertain only to the list of substances; the right-hand columns (Methods and PQL) are given for informational purposes only. See also footnotes 5 and 6. 2 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientiﬁc publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals. 3 Chemical Abstracts Service registry number. Where “Total” is entered, all species in the groundwater that contain this element are included. 4CAS index names are those used in the 9th Collective Index. IAC 7/4/07 Ch 113, p.86 Environmental Protection[567] IAC 7/4/07, 10/10/07 5Suggested Methods refer to analytical procedure numbers used in EPA Report SW-846 “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,” third edition, November 1986, as revised, December 1987. Analytical details can be found in SW-846 and in documentation on ﬁle at the agency. CAUTION: The methods listed are representative SW-846 procedures and may not always be the most suitable method(s) for monitoring an analyte under the regulations. 6 Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) are the lowest concentrations of analytes in groundwaters that can be reliably determined within speciﬁed limits of precision and accuracy by the indicated methods under routine laboratory operating conditions. The PQLs listed are generally stated to one signiﬁcant ﬁgure. PQLs are based on 5 mL samples for volatile organics and 1 L samples for semivolatile organics. CAUTION: The PQL values in many cases are based only on a general estimate for the method and not on a determination for individual compounds; PQLs are not a part of the regulation. 7 This substance is often called Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether, the name Chemical Abstracts Service applies to its noncommercial isomer, Propane, 2,2[sec]-oxybis[2-chloro(CAS RN 39638-32-9). 8 Chlordane: This entry includes alpha-chlordane (CAS RN 5103-71-9), beta-chlordane (CAS RN 5103-74-2), gamma-chlordane (CAS RN 5566-34-7), and constituents of chlordane (CAS RN 57-74-9 and CAS RN 12789-03-6). PQL shown is for technical chlordane. PQLs of speciﬁc isomers are about 20 mg/L by method 8270. 9 Polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS RN 1336-36-3); this category contains congener chemicals, including constituents of Aroclor 1016 (CAS RN 12674-11-2), Aroclor 1221 (CAS RN 11104-28-2), Aroclor 1232 (CAS RN 11141-16-5), Aroclor 1242 (CAS RN 53469-21-9), Aroclor 1248 (CAS RN 12672-29-6), Aroclor 1254 (CAS RN 11097-691), and Aroclor 1260 (CAS RN 11096-82-5). The PQL shown is an average value for PCB congeners. 10 Toxaphene: This entry includes congener chemicals contained in technical toxaphene (CAS RN 8001-35-2), i.e., chlorinated camphene. 11 Xylene (total): This entry includes o-xylene (CAS RN 96-47-6), m-xylene (CAS RN 108-38-3), p-xylene (CAS RN 106-42-3), and unspeciﬁed xylenes (dimethylbenzenes) (CAS RN 1330-20-7). PQLs for method 8021 are 0.2 mg/L for o-xylene and 0.1 for m- or p-xylene. The PQL for m-xylene is 2.0 mg/L by method 8020 or 8260. These rules are intended to implement Iowa Code section 455B.304. [Filed 11/21/02, Notice 9/18/02—published 12/11/02, effective 1/15/03] [Filed 6/14/07, Notice 12/6/06—published 7/4/07, effective 10/1/07*]

CAS RN3

Common Name2

(Continued)

Appendix II (Continued)

REFERENCES

123

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, October, 2008. City of Marion, Iowa, October, 2008. Cedar Rapids Linn County Solid Waste Agency, 2008. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. Young, G.C., “From Waste Solids to Fuel,” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. Young, G.C. and Lumsden, K. J., “From Curbside to Landﬁll,” Pollution Engineering, April 2009. “Iowa Statewide Waste Characterization Study,” Report: Iowa Department of Natural Resources, by R-W-Beck, January 2006. How Landﬁlls Work, http://science.howstuffworks.com/landﬁll3.htm, 09/16/2009. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Compiled from state agency websites, DNR survey and personal communications with state agency staff, October 19, 2005. Demolition Site Waste Task Force, Senate File 2325, Report prepared by: Demolition Site Waste Material Task Force, December 2002, www.iowadnr.wmad.org. “Renewable Energy Annual 1996,” Energy Information Administration, Ofﬁce of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, April 1997. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Landﬁlls, Iowa Tonnages for Fiscal Year 2007, July 1, 2006–June 30, 2007. Chartwell Information and the New York City Department of Sanitation, reproduced from Solid Waste Digest 12:7 (July, 2002), p. 6, http://www.wasteinfo.com Lee, F.G. and Jones-Lee, A., “Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landﬁlling of Municipal Solid Waste,” G. Fred Lee & Associates, September 2009. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Iowa DNR Workshop #1 Handout Subtitle D Economics, Shaw Environmental, Inc., May 2005. Chapter 113, Sanitary Landﬁlls for Municipal Solid Waste: Groundwater Protection Systems for the Disposal of Nonhazardous Wastes, IAC 7/4/2007, 10/10/07, Environmental Protection [567], Ch 113, pp. 1–87. Thorneloe, Susan, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2007.

CHAPTER 7

Plasma Economics: Garbage/Wastes to Power, Case Study with Economics of a 94 ton/day Facility

Subject: Preliminary Economic Evaluation for a Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Facility at 94 ton/day MSW Capacity using Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology. Background: Plasco Energy Group, Inc. of Ottawa, Canada built a demonstration plant to process 94 tons/day of municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy/ electricity using plasma arc technology. The facility is located across the road from Trail Road landﬁll southwest of Ottawa. The following preliminary analysis will determine economics of such a small-scale facility and the parameters in Canada that make it a viable demonstration facility. The gasiﬁcation test facility will process 94 tons/day for the city of Ottawa, Canada from the Trail Road landﬁll. The plasma gasiﬁcation process breaks down the garbage and produces a syngas for the generation of electricity. The by-product is vitriﬁed slag and it is used as a road material.1 A process ﬂow diagram illustrating the Plasma Gasiﬁcation Process is shown in Fig. 7.1. It can be seen from Fig. 7.1 that feedstock to the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation reactor is municipal solid waste (MSW). Prior to entering the gasiﬁcation reactor, feedstock is pretreated using methods such as shredding and metal recovery. Then the MSW is fed into the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation reactor and heated to about 700 C before entering the upper part near 1,000 C. The raw synthesis gas (syngas, predominantly CO and H2) is withdrawn overhead. The bottoms from the reactor are cooled and collected as vitriﬁed slag. The raw syngas is cleaned and cooled, and impurities such as sulfur and acid gases are removed. Cleaned syngas is used as a fuel and converted to energy in the power plant. Air emission control equipment, using the best-available technology, treats gaseous exhaust from the syngas cleanup and power plant prior to release to the

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

124

PLASMA ECONOMICS

125

Air Emissions Syngas Cleanup

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS)

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Plasma Arc Gasification Reactor

By-products such as Sulfur & Acid gases

Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Electricity to Grid

Vitrified Slag Saleable as: + Road material

FIGURE 7.1

Process Drawing, MSW to Electricity via Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation.

atmosphere. The power plant produces energy for the facility and exports energy as electricity to the grid.2,3 Using the process drawing of Fig. 7.1, a preliminary economic analysis of the Plasco Trail Road (PTR) facility was conducted. Economic analysis parameters for this facility are according to Table 7.1 and monetary values from Plasco Energy Group.4 The economic analysis computes a net revenue [total revenues–total expenditures] of $118,022.05/year (before taxes). Two key economic parameters that determine the positive net revenue are grant of $5,950,300.00 and a selling price for electricity of 9.91 ¢/kWh to the grid. As reported by the Plasco Energy Group, Inc. at a recent public meeting in Ottawa, Canada, air emissions from the Plasco Trail Road are shown in Table 7.2.1 TABLE 7.1 Parameters for Analysis of Plasco Trail Road Plasma Gasiﬁcation Facility, Ottawa, Canada: (Parameters—U.S. Currency & t-ton ¼ 2,000 pounds) Capital: $22,878,600.00 at 6.00% for 20 years and grant for $5,950,300.00 (Total Capital ¼ $28,828,900.00) Energy value: 1,277 kWh/ton MSW Energy to grid: 1,021 kWh/ton MSW at selling price of 9.91 cents/kWh Plant capacity: 94 tons/day MSW Personnel to operate facility: 15 at $28.00/hour Maintenance and operation supplies: $1,078,600.00 per year Capital budget reserve: $328,300 per year Vitriﬁed slag: 0.20 tons of vitriﬁed slag/ton MSW at selling price of $15.00/ton Tipping fee (revenue): $32.68/ton MSW

126

PLASMA ECONOMICS

TABLE 7.2

Air Emissions Ontario A-7 Limits

Plasco Trail Road (PTR) Operational Limits

Particulate matter

3

mg/Rm

17

12

Organic mater Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen ﬂuoride

mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3

66 27 —

50 19 —

Sulfur dioxide NOx expressed as NO2 Mercury Cadmium

mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3

56 207 20 14

37 207 20 14

Lead Class III metals Dioxins and furans

mg/Rm3 mg/Rm3 pg/Rm3

142 — 80

142 — 40

Parameter

Units

Current Data 10.9, 9.9, 20.2, 3.9, 3.5, 6.8 4, 4 1, 2 <0.03, 0.11, 0.27, 0.05, 0.03 28, 38 112, 114 0.25, 0.09, 0.04, 0.06 <0.41, <0.06, <0.07, <0.14 3.9, 7.4, 1.2, <0.3 342, 14, 51, 45 10.8

Source: Ref. (1). Note: All values are expressed at 11% O2 and reference conditions (101.3 kPa, 25 C)

As shown in Table 7.2, air emissions from the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility processing MSW meet the air requirements as stipulated by the controlling authorities. Plasco Energy Group, Inc. states for air: “Emissions are meeting and we are improving upon the regulated limits.”1 Recently, Plasco Energy Group, Inc. mentioned, “that the Ottawa City Council unanimously agreed to issue a letter of intent to PlascoEnergy to build, own and operate a 400 tonnes-per-day, [441 tons/day], waste conversion facility that will process residual household waste that would otherwise be sent to landﬁll.”5

MORE RECENT EVENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT Ottawa, Canada generates about 1,017,000 tonnes annually of solid waste for approximately 330,000 residential and 697,000 commercial and industrial (C&I). Unless the solid waste can be recycled, it continues to be dumped into a landﬁll. The city of Ottawa and Plasco Energy Group formed a joint venture for the city to provide the waste and Plasco to operate a state-of-the-art facility to evaluate and convert 85 tonnes per day of waste into electricity at the PTR Gasiﬁcation Process Demonstration facility. Household wastes from the city will be diverted to the facility including about 8% of nonrecyclable plastics that would otherwise be diverted to a landﬁll. The Plasco gasiﬁcation facility converts the waste into syngas (CO and H2) for further conversion into electricity for sale to Hydro Ottawa. The system is sealed so

MORE RECENT EVENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT

TABLE 7.3

127

Recent Air Emissions, Engine Data

Parameter

Units

Ontario Limits

Hydrogen chloride SOx Organic matter

ppmv ppmv ppmv

18 21 225

Plasco Trail Road (PTR) Operational Limits 13 14 200

Current Data (07-13-2009 to 08-16-2009) <8 <12 <135

Source: Ref. (6). Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Plasco Conversion Process, August 2009.

that no emissions go directly to the atmosphere. Power is generated by an internal combustion engine with the syngas as fuel. The exhaust from the engines is closely monitored so as to contain emissions within regulatory standards. Recent data from the engine exhausts are shown in Table 7.3.6 The Plasco conversion process for conversion of MSW to electricity is shown in Fig. 7.2. First, any waste materials of high reclamation value are removed from the waste stream and sent to recycling. Then, the MSW is shredded and any remaining high-value materials are again sent to recycling. The MSW enters into a conversion chamber where the waste is converted to crude syngas. The crude syngas is processed in a reﬁnement chamber where plasma torches reﬁne the crude syngas into a cleaner syngas. Now, the syngas is sent to a gas quality control unit to remove and recover sulfur, acid gases, and segregate heavy metals from the syngas. The process creates a clean syngas from the waste with no air emissions. The clean syngas is used to fuel internal combustion engines that generate electricity. The waste heat recovered from the engines and from cooling the syngas is used to produce steam in a heat recovery steam generation (HRSG) unit. The steam produced can be used to generate

FIGURE 7.2 Process Drawing, Plasco Conversion Process, MSW to Electricity.8

128

PLASMA ECONOMICS

electricity from a steam turbine or can provide steam heating for local industries and/ or for local district heating. The solid residue from the conversion chamber is sent to a high-temperature carbon recovery vessel with plasma torches for conversion into additional crude syngas. The additional crude syngas is recycled back into the main process crude syngas conversion chamber. Any remaining solids are stabilized into a melted slag and cooled into pellets.7 The slag pellets are a vitriﬁed solid that is inert and sold as construction aggregate.7,8

REFERENCES 1. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Plasco Trail Road, Public Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, July 24, 2008. 2. Ebert, J., “Landﬁll Eliminators, The Process is Called Plasma Gasiﬁcation and the Technology for Creating and Harnessing Plasma has Been Around for Decades. However, Plasma Gasiﬁcation Technology is Now Being Used for a New Purpose—The Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste-To-Energy,” Biomass Magazine, October 2007. 3. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Plasco Conversion Process, November 2008. 4. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Private Communication, May 3, 2007. 5. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., News release, June 25, 2008. 6. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Plasco Conversion Process, August 2009. 7. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., Monthly Engineer’s Report, Plasco Trail Road, Gasiﬁcation Process Demonstration Project, Review period: June 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009. 8. Plasco Energy Group, Inc., www.plascoenergygroup.com, 09/02/2009.

CHAPTER 8

Plant Operations: Eco-Valley Plant in Utashinai, Japan: An Independent Case Study

Subject: Evaluation of the Commercial Plant Operations at the Eco-Valley Plant in Utashinai, Japan Using Westinghouse Plasma Corporation Plasma Gasiﬁcation Technology Processing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Auto Shredder Residue. Background: Municipal solid waste (MSW) and auto shredder residue (ASR) are commercially processed via a process known as Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation. This commercial operation forms the basis of the Eco-Valley plant in Utashinai, Japan, which Hitachi Metals, Ltd. partially owns and operates. The Eco-Valley plant uses the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology of Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, a division of Alter Nrg. The plant has been operating since April 2003. Plant capacity is about 180 tonnes/day (200 ton/day) of MSW and ASR converting these solid wastes into energy, steam, and electricity This commercial plant gasiﬁes the organic wastes by a pyrolysis type of process (7,200–12,600 F) where the wastes are converted to a synthesis gas composed primarily of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). The inorganics of the solid wastes produce a rocklike material as a by-product. This by-product is a vitriﬁed slag, typically composed of silica glass and metals.1–7 The Eco-Valley plant at Utashinai, Japan is illustrated in Fig. 8.1 whereby the feedstock to the plasma arc reactor is municipal solid waste (MSW) and auto shredder residue (ASR). Coke and limestone are added as process aides. The organic materials are gasiﬁed in the reactor to syngas and exit the top for cleanup and heat recovery prior to entering the power plant. In the power plant, the syngas supplies the energy for the boiler producing steam for the steam turbine, which produces the electricity. Some energy from the power plant is used by the plant

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

129

130

PLANT OPERATIONS

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS)

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) & Auto Shredder Residue (ASR)

Coke & Limestone & Air

Gasification Reactor (Plasma Arc Reactor)

Syngas Cleanup & Heat Recovey

Environmental Remediation and Air Emissions

Power Plant (Boiler & Steam Turbine)

To Plasma Torches & Auxiliary Use

To Grid

Vitrified Slag & Metal

FIGURE 8.1 Electricity).

MSW and ASR to Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation—Syngas—Energy (Steam and

(plasma torches and auxiliary use) and the remainder sold to the grid. The vitriﬁed slag and metal are by-products recycled for commercial use.1–7 It has been reported that for this plant, with feedstock of MSW at 23 wt.% H2O and 23 wt.% ash, high heating value (HHV) of 5,660 Btu/lb, and coke (for generation of internal heat in the gasiﬁer) at about 4 wt.% of the MSW feed, on a N2-free basis the syngas would have a component composition as 40.37 mole% CO, 15.88 mole% H2, 37.33 mole% H2O, and 3.55 mole% CO2 for an HHV of 276 Btu/ft3.8 The Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation system consists basically of the following: Westinghouse plasma torches, Marc 3a, power: 80–300 kW for each torch, four torches per reactor, two reactors, boiler, and steam turbine.9–12,1 In addition, the plant design criteria are as follows: . .

.

200 tons/day feedstock of MSW and auto shredder waste (ASR); energy production from the plant is 7.9 MW of electricity, of which 3.6 MW is consumed by the plant (torches and auxiliaries) and 4.3 MW is sent to the grid.9–12,1 energy production from the plant at 300 tons/day MSW will produce an equivalent amount of total energy, i.e., 7.9 MW.12

With the previous outlined process and equipment described for the Eco-Valley plant at Utashinai, Japan, the plant operations can be discussed and determined by technical analysis. First, the operation of the plasma arc torches as supplied by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC) can be discussed as to their operability in a commercial plant setting. As mentioned previously, the plasma torches are Marc 3a

PLANT OPERATIONS

131

with the capability of operating a power supplied between 80 and 300 kW per torch. With a quantity of four torches per reactor, this design permits a reactor to operate from 80 to 1,200 kW. In process operations, this represents a turndown ratio of 15/1, i. e., maximum to minimum reactor operation. When considering a waste solid like MSW, this would indicate that one reactor could operate with a feedstock ranging from about 16 to 238 tons/day MSW. With two reactors in parallel, a feedstock ranging from about 16 to 470 tons/day of MSW could be processed. These factors indicate that the Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation reactors are designed to be ﬂexible in regard to feedstock variations and should be reliable for a commercial plant operation. As quoted in an article, “The facilities also suffer operational problems, though not with the plasma torch itself,. . ..”10 Thus, one can readily conclude from the torch and reactor design that much ﬂexibility exists for the plasma arc gasiﬁers, veriﬁed by comments from the Utashinai facility. Second, a discussion about the output of energy from the Utashinai plant is of keen interest to many since comments have been published as quoted, “. . . Tashinai’s plant pumps out . . . megawatts of power per year, all of which is used to run the plant.”10 By considering a mass and energy balance on the plant, an understanding of this comment can be substantiated. Consider the following mass and energy computational procedure as: a. From the plant design criteria, a feedstock of 200 tons/day of MSW and ASR will produce 7.9 MW of energy. If 300 tons/day of MSW is used as feedstock, the plant will produce 7.9 kW. b. Now, with a mass and energy balance using the result of (a), the computations will produce the following results at plant design conditions: MSW feed is 110 tons/day. ASR feed is 90 tons/day. Total feed is 200.0 tons/day. These feed materials produce 3.6 MW for plant use (torches and auxiliaries) and 4.3 MW for the grid, a total of 7.9 MW per the plant design speciﬁcations. Now consider the quotation from an article, “On average, the plant only processes 60% of trash volume that the company expected.”10 By using the previous results determined for the feed of MSW and ASR to the plant but at 60% of design feed rate, the mass and energy balance yields the following: MSW feed is 66 tons/day. ASR feed is 54 tons/day. Total feed is 120.0 tons/day. Thus, the new feed rates produce 1.7 MW energy from MSW and 3.0 MW from ASR for a total of 4.7 MW. At feedstock at 50% of design, 1.4 MWenergy is generated from MSW and 2.5 MW from ASR for a total of 3.9 MW. Note, the plant design

132

PLANT OPERATIONS

speciﬁcations state that 3.6 MW is consumed by the plant (torches and auxiliaries). The conclusion is obvious that at 50–60% of the design feedstock, energy is produced only to operate the plant, with no excess energy produced for the grid. The results are summarized in Table 8.1. The bottom line is that comments reported in articles on the Eco-Valley plant in Utashinai, Japan have been substantiated by these mass and energy balances. With proper quantity of feedstock for the Utashinai plant, one would expect the plant to perform according to design, i.e., the Utashinai Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation plant on MSW and ASR will produce an excess of energy for sale to the grid. In summary, from this analysis, the Utashinai plant is producing according to plant design and technology. With recent interest in the ever-increasing cost for the disposal of, MSW, auto ﬂuff, hazardous materials, and medical wastes, the Eco-Valley plant in Utashinai, Japan continues to draw the public attention. The existing facilities in Japan and other countries typically own the rights to testing information and thus are not required to publically disclose process and emission technology or data. Thus, public information is limited at best and therefore results that appear in public documents are, and can be, confusing and potentially misleading. The evaluation of the Utashinai facility presented earlier in this chapter was done principally to dispel myths generated by any confusion or misunderstandings based upon sound scientiﬁc analysis. In addition, the following comments are made regarding the Utashinai facility, depicted in Fig. 8.2, to bring additional attention to this important facility upon which the advancement of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation technology currently depends. The plasma arc facility at Utashinai uses the Westinghouse (Alter Nrg) plasma arc torches. Alter Nrg is the parent company of WPC technology. With experience exceeding 40 years, Alter Nrg has designed and engineered many applications. The WPC technology was originally developed with NASA for use in the Apollo space program to test high-temperature re-entry conditions of over 9,932 F or 5,500 C. With this experience with WPC technology since the 1980s, WPC has proven itself in

TABLE 8.1

Summaries of Utashinai Plant Design and Operations

Material

Design Feed

MSW ASR Total

110 tons/day 90 tons/day 200 tons/day

Material

Design Feed

MSW ASR Total

110 tons/day 90 tons/day 200 tons/day

Design Energy Generated

60% of Design Feed

60% of Design Energy Generated

3.6 MW 4.3 MW 7.9 MW

66 tons/day 54 tons/day 120.0 tons/day

1.7 MW 3.0 MW 4.7 MW

Design Energy Generated

50% of Design Feed

50% of Design Energy Generated

3.6 MW 4.3 MW 7.9 MW

55 tons/day 45 tons/day 100.0 tons/day

1.4 MW 2.5 MW 3.9 MW

Note: Design speciﬁcation for energy consumed by the plant operation (torches and auxiliaries) is 3.6 MW. When plant is at 50–60% of design feed rate, the energy generated from the plant is about 3.6 MW, which is just sufﬁcient for plant operations.

REFERENCES

FIGURE 8.2

133

Eco-Valley Waste-to-Energy Facility, Processing MSW, Utashinai, Japan.13

industrial applications such as General Motors and Hitachi Metals. Such industrial applications have made the WPC torches robust and reliable under strenuous environments.13,14 The Utashinai, Japan facility (Fig. 8.2) has a capacity of between 200 and 300 tons/ day of MSW and ASR. This plant was designed for 200 tons/day of auto ﬂuff or 300 tons/day MSW. Combination of the two feedstocks can also be processed. Once again, public information on the research conducted by this facility is limited. The evaluation presented earlier in this chapter is presented to contribute to a better understanding of the current operation and design of this facility.

REFERENCES 1. Circeo, L.J., Engineering and Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology, Technological Forum, Kirkwood Training and Outreach Services Center, Marion, Iowa, November 22, 2005. 2. Circeo, L.J., “Engineering & Environmental Applications of Plasma Arc Technology,” Presentation, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA 2005. 3. Recovered Energy, Inc., Pocatello, Idaho, www.recoveredenergy.com, “Process Flow Diagram,” MSW into energy and useable by-products. 4. “Summary Report: Evaluation of Alternative Solid Waste Processing Technologies,” Prepared for: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, 419 S. Spring Street, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90013; Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017, September 2005. 5. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 6. Young, G.C., “From Waste Solids to Fuel,” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. 7. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, February 2007. 8. Cobb, J.T., Jr., “Production of Synthesis Gas by Biomass Gasiﬁcation—ATutorial,” 2007 AIChE Spring National Meeting, April 22–26, 2007.

134

PLANT OPERATIONS

9. Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, a division of Alter Nrg, www.westinghouse-plasma. com, Commercially Proven, December 2008. 10. Cyranoski, D., “One Man’s Trash. . .,” Nature, November 16, 2006, p. 262. 11. Bodurow, C.(USEPA/OPPTS/OPPT/RAD), Circeo, L.J., Caravati, K.C., Martin, R.C., and Smith, M.S.(Georgia Tech Research Institute), “Plasma Processing of MSW for Energy Recovery,” EPA Science Forum, 2005. 12. Circeo, L.J., Private Communication, December 23, 2008. 13. Alter NRG, Eco-Valley Waste to Energy, www.alternrg.ca, September 2009. 14. Aitkin County Plasma Gasiﬁcation Study, Prepared by: Northspan Group, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota, April 2008.

CHAPTER 9

Municipal Solid Waste and Properties

WHAT IS MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) AND HOW MUCH IS GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES? Municipal solid waste (MSW) is typically known by the public as “trash” or “garbage.” Basically MSW consists of product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, and batteries. MSW is disposed in landﬁlls as illustrated in Fig. 9.1. Some of the items in MSW are recycled wherever economical and/or practical. In addition, materials, not generally included as MSW but sent to landﬁlls, are construction and demolition debris, municipal wastewater treatment sludges, and nonhazardous industrial wastes. In other words, MSW does “not” include wastes of other types or from other sources such as automobile bodies, municipal sludges, combustion ash, and industrial process wastes that might also be disposed in municipal waste landﬁlls.2 Sources of MSW are both residential and commercial. Residential waste sources (including waste from multifamily dwellings) were estimated to be 55–65% of total MSW generation. Commercial waste sources (including waste from schools, some industrial sites where packaging is generated, and businesses) constitutes between 35 and 45% of MSW generation. Final breakdown of quantities involved with residential waste and commercial waste depend on location.2 MSWs can be characterized as coming from residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial sources. Some examples of the types of MSW that come from each of the broad categories of sources are listed in Table 9.1.2 “MSW” does “not” include everything that is landﬁlled in Subtitle D landﬁlls (Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act deals with wastes other than the hazardous wastes that are covered under Subtitle C.) As shown in Table 9.2, however, RCRA Subtitle D includes many kinds of wastes. It has been a common practice to landﬁll wastes such as municipal sludges, nonhazardous industrial wastes, residue from automobile salvage operations, and construction and demolition debris

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

135

136

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.1

TABLE 9.1

MSW Disposed in Landﬁlls.1

Sources of MSW, Year 2005

Sources and Examples

Example Products

Residential: single- and multifamily homes

Newspapers, clothing, disposable tableware, food packaging, cans and bottles, food scraps, yard trimmings Corrugated boxes, food scraps, ofﬁce disposable tableware, paper napkins, yard trimmings

Commercial: ofﬁce buildings, retail and papers, wholesale establishments, restaurants Institutional: schools, libraries, hospitals, prisons Industrial: packaging and administrative; not process wastes

TABLE 9.2

Cafeteria and restroom trash can wastes, ofﬁce papers, classroom wastes, yard trimmings Corrugated boxes, plastic ﬁlm, wood pallets, lunchroom wastes, ofﬁce papers

MSW and RCRA Subtitle D Wastes

The Subtitle Dwastes included here in MSW are: Containers and packaging such as soft drink bottles and corrugated boxes Durable goods such as furniture and appliances Nondurable goods such as newspapers, trash bags, and clothing Other wastes such as food scraps and yard trimmings The Subtitle D wastes not included here in MSW, are: Municipal sludges Agricultural wastes Industrial nonhazardous wastes Oil and gas wastes Construction and demolition debris Mining wastes Source: Ref. (2).

MSW PROPERTIES

137

along with MSW, but these other kinds of wastes are “not” included as MSW in the estimates presented. MSW generation in the United States has increased over the years to 245.7 million tons of MSW in 2005. This amounts to 4.5 pounds of MSW per person per day in 2005. MSW consists of: paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, glass, metals, plastics, wood, and food scraps. In addition, rubber, leather, and textiles are combined as a group and a ﬁnal group is listed as miscellaneous. These constituents in MSW are broken down by percent weight and illustrated in Fig. 9.2. The generation and recovery (recycle) of materials in MSW for 2005 are presented in Table 9.3.2 Latest generation of MSW in the United States for the year 2007 are summarized in Table 9.4. The MSW industry can be pictorially shown in Fig. 9.3 with four basic components: recycling, composting, landﬁlling, and waste-to-energy. As discussed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deﬁnes MSW as wastes from residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial sources.4 A statewide waste characterization study for Iowa was conducted in the year 2005 for Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The results of this study are summarized in Table 9.5 for materials, composition, and quantities.5 The estimated generation of MSW for the 38 largest metropolitan areas in the United States is presented in Table 9.6. A total metropolitan population of about 124 million has an estimated generation of MSW of about 57,893,000 tons/ year.6

MSW PROPERTIES The design of a process for the management of MSW and the resultant economic evaluation and development of a viable business plan require the properties of MSW. Hence, the MSW properties are presented to assist those performing such design and economic evaluations. In the presentation of these properties, one should keep in mind the material for which these properties are determined. A picture of the material, MSW, is vividly displayed in Fig. 9.4 for a typical landﬁll.5 Some typical properties of MSW of interest are the density of various components as shown in Table 9.7. Typical density for various uncompacted wastes in MSW are listed such as food wastes, paper, plastics, garden trimmings, glass, and ferrous metals.7 The table also lists typical moisture content and range of moisture content for various components of MSW such as residential, commercial, construction and demolition, industrial, and agricultural. A typical proximate analysis is also shown for wastes such as mixed food, mixed paper, mixed plastics, yard wastes, glass, and residential MSW. The typical proximate analysis values for moisture, volatiles, carbon and ash are shown in weight percent. In addition, an elemental analysis is shown for the wastes of mixed food, mixed paper, mixed plastics, yard wastes, and

138

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.2 Recycling).

2005—Total MSW Generation in United States—246 Million Tons (Before

TABLE 9.3 Generation and Recovery (Recycle) of Materials in the United States of MSW (Year 2005) Weight Generated (Millions Tons)

Weight Recovered (Millions Tons)

Percent Recovered (%)

Paper and paperboard Glass Metals Steel Aluminum Other nonferrous metals a Total metals Plastics Rubber and leather Textiles Wood Other materials

84.0 12.8

42.0 2.76

50.0 21.6

13.8 3.21 1.74 18.75 28.9 6.70 11.1 13.9 4.57

4.93 0.69 1.26 6.88 1.65 0.96 1.70 1.31 1.17

35.7 21.5 72.4 36.7 5.7 14.3 15.3 9.4 25.6

Total materials in products

Material

180.72

58.43

32.3

Other wastes Food, other b Yard trimmings Miscellaneous inorganic wastes

29.2 32.1 3.69

0.69 19.9 Neg.

2.4 62.0 Neg.

Total other wastes

64.99

20.59

31.7

79.0

32.1

Total municipal solid waste (MSW)

245.7

Source: Ref. (2). Notes: The table includes waste from residential, commercial, and institutional sources. Neg ¼ Less than 5,000 tons or 0.05%. a Includes lead from lead-acid batteries. b Includes recovery of other MSW organics for composting.

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.4

139

MSW in the United States in 2007 (Facts)

Generated 254.1 million tons 1,686.3 pounds per person per year 4.62 pounds per person per day Yard trimmings, food wastes, corrugated boxes, glass bottles, and newspapers are the largest items in MSW before recycling Recycled 63.3 million tons, a 24.9% rate 1.15 pounds per person per day 419.75 pounds per person per year Corrugated boxes, newspapers, ofﬁce paper, and glass bottles are the most recycled by weight. Lead-acid batteries, newspapers, corrugated boxes, and ofﬁce papers have the highest recycling rates Composted 21.7 million tons of yard and food waste 8.5% composting rate for all MSW 64.1% composting rate for yard waste 2.6% rate for food waste 0.39 pounds per person per day 142.35 pounds per person per year Landﬁll density (1997 data) 323,812,000 cubic yards of MSW was landﬁlled Corrugated boxes, clothing and footwear, yard waste, and food waste occupy the most space in landﬁlls Aluminum cans and plastic bottles have the lowest landﬁll density Glass bottles and food waste have the highest density An average pound of trash has a landﬁll density of 739 pounds per cubic yard Source: Ref. (3).

refuse derived fuel (RDF), and elements contained in these wastes such as carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S), and ash on a % by weight basis.7 Some materials of interest appear in MSW and respective properties need identiﬁcation for moisture, ash, and caloriﬁc values (dry basis). Some typical materials that appear in most areas are shown in Table 9.8.8 An elemental analysis was performed for the MSW and coal used at the Ames Municipal Power Plant in Ames, Iowa. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 9.9.9 A detailed chemical analysis for an average MSW, presented in the Brazilian Journal of Physics, is given in Table 9.10.10 An elemental analysis of MSW and heating values in comparison to bituminous coal are presented in Table 9.11.11 Heating values are presented in the literature in units of kJ/kg, BTU/lb, kWh/lb, kWh/ton, and kWh/tonne. A ton is 2,000 pounds and a tonne (metric ton) is 2,205 pounds. To help understand the magnitude of these heating values, presented in any of these units, Table 9.12 was generated.

140

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.3

Components of MSW: Recycling, Composting, Landﬁlling, and Waste-to-Energy.4

A study was conducted for New York City solid wastes to determine the energy related to the management of MSW. This study examined the energy of the combustible components of MSWand their use as fuel to generate process steam and electricity. Even though MSW has considerable heterogeneity of materials, the mean hydrocarbon structure was found to be approximated by C6H10O4. The comparison of the experimental heating values of the various waste materials is shown in Fig. 9.5.12 Other data for heating values, moisture, proximate analysis, and elemental analysis of wastes are shown in Table 9.13. The name “refuse” is given to a solid waste in studies for gasiﬁcation processes. In Nordrhein-Westfalen a “standard refuse” was developed with composition presented in Table 9.14.15 Some caution should be used about compositions presented in any literature because the refuse and/or MSW presented is site-speciﬁc and depends on local recycling of household wastes and can have a big inﬂuence upon the ﬁnal heating value. Additional waste material discussed routinely is given the term “biomass.” Biomass covers a variety of materials that can be used as raw materials for gasiﬁcation. Biomass is generally considered as a material derived from living organisms but “excluding” fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas that are derived from ancient life forms. Biomass can be generally considered agricultural and forestry wastes and wastes from processes such as biochemical processes using renewable raw materials. Some biomass materials are listed in Table 9.15.16 The properties of Illinois No. 6 coal are presented in Table 9.16, as some energy studies on gasiﬁcation processes use this particular coal as a raw material.17

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.5

141

MSW Materials, Iowa Statewide—2005

Materials Compostable paper High grade ofﬁce Magazines Mixed recyclable paper Newsprint Non-recyclable paper OCC and draft paper Total paper #1 PET deposit beverage containers #1 PET beverage containers #2 HDPE containers Film/wrap/bags Other #1 PET containers Other plastic containers Other plastic products Total plastics

Composition (Weight%)

Quantities (Tons)

6.5 2.5 1.8 6.9 4.0 2.8 2.8

173,764 65,743 48,784 186,153 107,465 73,844 227,093

32.9

882,846

0.2 0.4 1.0 6.5 0.3 0.4 6.0

5,243 11,472 27,033 175,191 7,243 10,447 160,666

14.8

397,294

Aluminum beverage containers Aluminum deposit beverage containers Ferrous food and beverage containers Other aluminum containers Other ferrous metals Other non-ferrous scrap

0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 2.8 0.5

3,773 4,306 26,288 2,841 75,770 13,314

Total metals

4.7

126,293

0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.6 0.3 1.3 1.6 10.8 3.4 4.6

919 1,079 19,205 7,240 2,913 14,645 46,000 7,307 36,163 43,470 289,268 90,449 122,276

Total wood

8.0

213,225

Demolition/renovation/construction debris Cell phones and charges Central processing units/peripherals Computer monitors/TV’s

5.5 0.0 0.2 0.1

146,823 112 5,191 1,429

Blue glass Brown glass Clear glass Glass deposit containers Green glass Other mixed cullet Total glass Pumpkins Yard waste Total yard waste Food waste Non-treated Treated

(continued)

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

142

TABLE 9.5

(Contineud) Composition (Weight%)

Materials Electrical and household appliances Other durables

Quantities (Tons)

2.1 2.7

57,248 71,571

Total durables

5.1

135,550

Textiles and leathers Diapers Rubber Automotive products Household cleaners Lead acid batteries Mercury containing products Other batteries Other HHM (household hazardous material) Paints and solvent Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides

4.9 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0

131,328 63,786 11,089 768 253 — 23 5,500 2,995 3,013 204

Total HHMs

0.5

12,756

Sharps Other organic Other inorganic Fines/super mix Other

0.0 1.5 2.4 2.4 0.5

252 39,818 63,569 63,948 12,384

100.0

2,679,700

Grand total Source: Ref. (5).

The heating value is determined by combustion from a sample analyzed in a calorimeter. However, if a heating value is not available, then the high heating value (HHV) can be determined from the ultimate or proximate analyses by the following Equation (9.1):18 HHVðMJ=kgÞ ¼ ð34:91 CÞ þ ð117:83 HÞð10:34 OÞð1:51 NÞ þ ð10:05 SÞð2:11 AshÞ

ð9:1Þ

where C, H, O, N, S, and ash are the mass fractions of the elements from the ultimate and proximate analyses. Example: An MSW has an ultimate analysis (mass fractions) as follows:11 C H O N S Ash

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

0:37418 0:05138 0:29908 0:01186 0:00132 0:2556

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.6 Areas

143

Estimated Generation of MSW for the 38 Largest U.S. Metropolitan

City New York, NY Los Angeles, CA Chicago, IL Philadelphia, PA Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX Washington, DC Detroit, MI San Francisco-Oakland, CA Houston, TX Atlanta, GA Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL Boston, MA Seattle-Tacoma, WA Phoenix-Mesa, AZ Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN San Diego, CA St. Louis, MO Baltimore, MD Pittsburgh, PA Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL Cleveland, OH Denver, CO Portland, OR–Vancouver, WA Kansas City, MO San Jose, CA Cincinnati, OH Sacramento, CA San Antonio, TX Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA Indianapolis, IN Orlando, FL Columbus, OH Milwaukee, WI Charlotte-Gastonia, NC Las Vegas, NV New Orleans, LA Salt Lake-Ogden, UT Hartford, CT Total Metropolitan United States Source: Ref. (6).

Population (millions)

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (1000 tons/year)

15.000 13.000 8.008 4.950 4.910 4.740 4.475 4.035 4.011 3.857 3.711 3.297 3.260 3.014 2.872 2.821 2.569 2.491 2.331 2.278 2.221 1.979 1.846 1.756 1.647 1.628 1.585 1.565 1.563 1.537 1.535 1.489 1.462 1.417 1.381 1.305 1.275 1.147

7005 6071 3740 2312 2293 2214 2090 1884 1873 1801 1733 1540 1522 1408 1341 1317 1200 1163 1089 1064 1037 924 862 820 769 760 740 731 730 718 717 695 683 662 645 609 595 536

123.968

57,893

144

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

FIGURE 9.4

MSW Landﬁll.5

which computes an HHV of 15.48 MJ/kg dry from Equation (9.1) for the MSW, or 6,661 BTU/pound. This calculated HHV is in agreement with the value reported for the ultimate analysis.11 The heating value can be estimated using the Dulong formula as Equation (9.2) based upon the ultimate analysis: HHVðMJ=kgÞ ¼ ð33:86 CÞ þ ½144:4 ðHðO=8Þ þ ð9:428 SÞ

ð9:2Þ

where C, H, O, and S are the mass fractions of the elements from the ultimate analysis.19 Example: A coal has the following proximate analysis expressed in mass fractions:17 C ¼ 0:7172 H ¼ 0:0506 O ¼ 0:0775 S ¼ 0:0282 which computes an HHV of 30.48 MJ/kg dry from Equation (9.2) for Illinois No. 6 coal, or 13,115 BTU/lb. The computed heating value (HHV) of 30.48 MJ/kg from Equation (9.2) is in close agreement with the HHV value of 30.51 MJ/kg (13,126 BTU/lb) reported for this Illinois No. 6 coal with the proximate analysis.17 As a ﬁnal comment, caution should be used with some due diligence when properties are selected for a particular waste material, as such properties can vary widely for different site-speciﬁc locations. The process of gasiﬁcation of materials can be understood by looking at the basic chemical equations involved but knowing that it is a much more complex process. In

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.7

145

Physical Properties of MSW Typical Properties of Uncompacted Wastes (USA Data)—Density Density (kg/m3)

Food wastes Paper Plastics Garden trimmings Glass Ferrous metals

288 81.7 64 104 194 320 Typical moisture Contents of Wastes Moisturecontent(wt.%)

Residential Food wastes (mixed) Paper Plastics Yard wastes Glass Commercial Food wastes Rubbish (mixed) Construction and demolition Mixed demolition Combustibles Mixed construction combustibles Industrial Chemical sludge (wet) Sawdust Wood (mixed) Agricultural Mixed agricultural waste Manure (wet)

Range

Typical

50–80 4–10 1–4 30–80 1–4

70 6 2 60 2

50–80 10–25

70 15

4–15

8

4–15

8

75–99 10–40 30–60

80 20 35

40–80 75–96

50 94

Typical Proximate Analysis Values (% by weight) Type of waste

Moisture

Volatiles

Carbon

Ash

Mixed food Mixed paper Mixed plastics Yard wastes Glass Residential MSW

70.0 10.2 0.2 60.0 2.0 21.0

21.4 75.9 95.8 30.0 — 52.0

3.6 8.4 2.0 9.5 — 7.0

5.0 5.4 2.0 0.5 96-99 20.0

Typical Elemental Analysis (% by weight): Type of waste

C

H

O

N

S

Ash

Mixed food Mixed paper Mixed plastics Yard wastes Refuse derived fuel

73.0 43.3 60.0 46.0 44.7

11.5 5.8 7.2 6.0 6.2

14.8 44.3 22.8 38.0 38.4

0.4 0.3 — 3.4 0.7

0.1 0.2 — 0.3 <0.1

0.2 6.0 10.0 6.3 9.9

Source: Ref. (7).

146

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.8

Caloriﬁc Values of Various Materials

Material

Caloriﬁc Value (BTU/lb)

Ash Content (wt.%)

Moisture Content (wt.%)

6,330 7,600 5,690 7,670 10,600 9,150 15,240 8,592 13,681 7,500 7,980

0.1 4.6 1.2 5.2 2.47 24.5 3.4 12.3 8.7 0.8 1.75

19 7.5 27.5 10.4 8.9 1.9

Soft wood Fiber board 90% paper Damp wood Leather trimmings Cotton seed hulls Sludge material (steel mill) Nitrile rubber Cardboard granulated Carbon residue Wood waste, sawdust Nut shells

6.4 Nil 14 11.85

this regard, the chemical equations with the heat of reactions are presented for understanding. Basic chemical reactions in the gasiﬁcation process for producing syngas are: C þ O2 ! CO2 C þ H2 O > CO þ H2 C þ 2H2 > CH4 C þ CO2 > 2CO

394 MJ=kmol

þ 131 MJ=kmol 75 MJ=kmol þ 172 MJ=kmol

CO þ H2 O > CO2 þ H2

ðendothermicÞ

ðexothermicÞ ðendothermicÞ

41 MJ=kmol

Cn Hm þ nH2 O > nCO þ ðn þ 12mÞH2

TABLE 9.9

ðexothermicÞ

ðexothermicÞ

ðendothermicÞ

ð9:3Þ ð9:4Þ ð9:5Þ ð9:6Þ ð9:7Þ ð9:8Þ

Elemental Analysis of MSW and Coal

Constituent

MSW (wt.%)

Coal (wt.%)

C H O N S Cl Moisture Ash

35.5 4.8 25.1 0.40 0.15 0.59 (max) 26.5 7.6

51.7 3.5 12.6 0.73 0.22 0.02 27.0 4.38

Source: Ref. (9). Note: Elemental analysis for MSW and Coal used at Ames Municipal Power Plant, Ames, Iowa. MSW burned at the Ames facility. Coal used: Rochelle North Antelope western coal.

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.10

147

Chemical Composition of Average MSW

Component C H O N S Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Sn Cl F Al Fe Hg As Sb Tl Ag Br Ba Se Si V Na2CO3 CaCO3 SiO3 (Glass) H2 O Ash/inert

Composition (mg/kg)

Weight %

196,548.69 16,787.29 79,525.46 3,239.47 3,351.38 0.6436 6.9193 67.2243 4.3536 28.2185 93.9698 1.1246 1,774.97 21.2468 2,864.85 11,473.79 0.0179 0.4451 0.00056 8.4870 3.0185 1.1253 4.2113 4.0474 4.0747 49.5798 96,805.03

1.9655E þ 01 1.6787E þ 00 7.9525E þ 00 3.2395E 01 3.3514E 01 6.4360E 05 6.9193E 04 6.7224E 03 4.3536E 04 2.8219E 03 9.3970E 03 1.1246E 04 1.7750E 01 2.1247E 03 2.8649E 01 1.1474E þ 00 1.7900E 06 4.4510E 05 5.6000E 08 8.4870E 04 3.0185E 04 1.1253E 04 4.2113E 04 4.0474E 04 4.0747E 04 4.9580E 03 9.6805E þ 00

548,575.67 31,603.09

5.4858E þ 01 3.1603E þ 00

Source: Ref. (10).

For the steam methane reforming reaction, where n ¼ 1 and m ¼ 4, Equation (9.8) becomes: CH4 þ H2 O > CO þ 3H2

þ 204 MJ=kmol

ðendothermicÞ

ð9:9Þ

Note that an exothermic reaction produces heat (output) whereas an endothermic reaction requires heat (input). Also note that Equation (9.3) is a combustion reaction that is sometimes used in the gasiﬁcation process to provide some internal (in situ) process heat for the endothermic syngas reactions but only a (limited) amount of

148

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.11

Elemental Analysis of MSW and Heating Values

Constituent C, Carbon (kg/kg dry) H, Hydrogen (kg/kg dry) O, Oxygen (kg/kg dry) N, Nitrogen (kg/kg dry) S, Sulfur (kg/kg dry) Cl, Chlorine (kg/kg dry) Ash, inert (kg/kg dry) Water, wet basis (kg/kg wet) Lower heating value (MJ/kg dry) (calculated) Upper heating value (MJ/kg dry) (calculated)

MSW

Bituminous Coal

0.37418 0.05138 0.29908 0.01186 0.00132 0.00659 0.2556 0.241 14.36 15.48

0.73798 0.04896 0.09133 0.01405 0.00801 0.00199 0.09769 0.089 29.37 30.44

Source: Ref. (11). Note: In Table 9.11, both lower heating and upper heating values are presented. Heating values express the amount of energy released on combustion of a given quantity of fuel. The upper heating value includes the heat obtained by condensing the water vapor produced by combustion. The lower heating value (LHV) does not include the water vapor condensed from combustion. Typically, if a process exhausts the water vapor produced by combustion, then the LHV may be used. If the process condenses the water vapor produced by combustion, then the upper heating value may be used.

oxygen is supplied so the gasiﬁcation reactor environment remains conducive for the production of syngas. The remaining process heat is supplied externally to the gasiﬁcation reactor, for example through the heat transfer surfaces of the reactor heating system. In a study of biofuel feedstock with forest and wood residues, properties of these cellulose materials were presented for those located in Norway. Densities were presented for some hardwoods and softwoods, for example: Scandinavian spruce

TABLE 9.12

Energy Conversions for Heating Values

Heating Value (kJ/kg) 2,000 3,000 5,000 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Heating Value (BTU/lb) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

860.6 1,290.8 2,151.4 4,302.8 5,378.5 6,454.2 7,529.9 8,605.6 10,757.1 12,908.5 15,059.9

Heating Value (kWh/lb) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

0.2520 0.3780 0.6300 1.2601 1.5751 1.8901 2.2052 2.5202 3.1502 3.7803 4.4103

Heating Value (kWh/ton) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

504.0 756.1 1,260.1 2,520.2 3,150.2 3,780.3 4,410.3 5,040.4 6,300.5 7,560.6 8,820.6

Heating Value (kWh/tonne) ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

555.7 833.6 1,389.3 2,778.5 3,473.1 4,167.8 4,862.4 5,557.0 6,946.3 8,335.5 9,724.8

Note: ton ¼ 2000 lbs; tonne ¼ 2205 lbs; New York City (NYC) MSW is about 12,500 kJ/kg heating value.

MSW PROPERTIES

149

FIGURE 9.5 Comparison of Experimental Heating Values of Various Waste Materials (Hollander, Tchobanoglous, 1980). Lines Show Respective Thermochemical Values for C6H10Ox Materials.12

TABLE 9.13 Heating Value, Moisture, Proximate Analysis, and Elemental Analysis of Wastes Heating Value of MSW and Moisture Content

Type of waste Food waste Paper Plastics Textiles Rubber Wood Garden trimmings

Heating value (dry basis)13 [kJ/kg]

Moisture content14 [Wt.%]

4,600 16,700 32,500 17,500 23,300 18,600 6,500

70 6 2 10 2 60 60

Composition of MSW by Proximate Analysis Type of waste Mixed paper Yard waste Food waste Plastics (PE)

Moisture (wt.%) 10.2 75.2 78.3 0.2

Ash (wt.%)

Volatile matter (wt.%)

Fixed carbon (wt.%)

5.4 1.6 1.0 1.2

75.9 18.6 17.0 98.5

8.5 4.6 3.7 0.1

Composition of MSW by Elemental Analysis Element

Wt. %

Carbon, C Hydrogen, H Oxygen, O Nitrogen, N Sulfur, S

51.9 7.0 39.6 1.1 0.4

150

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.14

Standard Refuse in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)

Composition

Mass (wt.%)

C H O N S Cl Moisture (H2O) Ash

27.16 3.45 18.39 0.30 0.20 0.50 25.0 25.0

Total

100.00

Ash Composition

kg/1000 kg 110 34 31 30 15.2 15 4.5 4 3 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.075 0.01 0.005 0.005

SiO2 Al2O3 CaO Fe Na2O Fe2O3 MgO Al K2O Zn Pb Cu Cr Ni Cd Hg As

Lower heating value, 10 MJ/kg Source: Ref. (15).

(softwood), density of 380 kg dry wood/m3; Scandinavian pine (softwood), density of 440 kg dry wood/m3; and Scandinavian birch (hardwood), density of 500 kg dry wood/m3. Bark was considered to have a density of 500 kg dry wood/m3. Another property of importance was the inﬂuence of moisture content on the heating value of these wood cellulose products. Water in these cellulose products takes considerable energy to evaporate, such as 2,444 kJ/kg (1,052 BTU/lb) water at 25 C. It was noted that at a moisture content of about 87%, the energy content of the wood is equivalent to

TABLE 9.15

Properties of Some Biomasses

Biomass Charcoal Wood Straw Cotton residues (stalks) Rice husk Soya straw Cotton residue (gin trash) Maize (stalk) Sawdust Bagasse Source: Refs. (15, 16).

High Heating Value (MJ/kg) 25–32 10–20 14–16 16 13–14 15–16 14 13–15 11 8–10

Moisture (wt.%) 1–10 10–60 10 10–20 9–15 8–9 9 10–20 35 40–60

Ash (wt.%) 0.5–6 0.25–1.7 4–5 0.1 15–20 5–6 12 2 (3–7) 2 1–4

Sulfur (wt.% dry)

Chlorine (wt.% dry)

0.01 0.07

0.01 0.49

0.05

1.48

MSW PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.16

151

Characteristics of Illinois No. 6 Coal

Rank Seam Source

High Volatile Bituminous Illinois #6 (Herrin) Old Ben mine Proximate Analysis (weight %) a As Received

Moisture Ash Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon HHV (Btu/lb)

Dry

11.12 9.70 34.99 44.19 11,666

0.00 10.91 39.37 49.72 13,126

Ultimate Analysis (weight %) As Received Carbon Moisture Hydrogen Nitrogen Chlorine Sulfur Ash Oxygen b Total

Dry

63.75 11.12 4.50 1.25 0.29 2.51 9.70 6.88 100.00

71.72 0.00 5.06 1.41 0.33 2.82 10.91 7.75 100.00

Source: Ref. (17). a The above proximate analysis assumes that sulfur is volatile matter. b By difference.

the energy required to evaporate the moisture. At around 50–55% moisture, any further increase in moisture level reduces the energy value of the wood signiﬁcantly. LHV is 2,120 kWh/m3 for dry spruce, 2,230 kWh/m3 for dry pine, 2,650 kWh/m3 for dry birch, and 2,050 kWh/m3 for dry bark.20 TABLE 9.17 Component

Composition of a Hardwood, Typical Yellow Poplar Dry Basis (% wt.)

Cellulose Xylan Arabinan Mannan Galactan Acetate a Lignin Ash

42.67 19.05 0.79 3.93 0.24 4.64 27.68 1.00

Total Moisture

100.00 47.90

Source: Ref. (21). Acetate refers to the acetate groups present in the hemicellulose polymer. They are generally converted to acetic acid in the prehydrolysis reactor.

152

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

TABLE 9.18

Wastes: MSW, Medical Waste, and Used Tires

MSW (3,100 kWh/ton) Paper Yard Food Plastics Metals Rubber, leather, textile Glass Wood Others Moisture Total

wt.% 25.97 8.25 7.43 7.16 5.32 4.50 3.75 3.61 2.18 31.83 100.00

Medical Waste (4,800 kWh/ton)

wt.%

Cellulose Glass Polypropylene Polyethylene Polystyrene Organic tissue Stainless steel PVC

18.40 11.04 11.04 11.04 7.36 3.50 3.68 3.68

Moisture

Used Tires (8,900 kWh/ton)

wt.%

Carbon black Rubber Sulfur Nitrogen Steel Ash

30.50 46.00 2.50 1.00 15.00 5.00

30.26 100.00

100.00

Source: Ref. (22).

Much experimental work has been conducted using a hardwood, typically yellow poplar, as a typical feedstock. Therefore, the composition of yellow poplar is presented in Table 9.17.21 Properties of wastes as resources are reported with regard to energy content and constituent composition in Table 9.18 for MSW, medical waste, and used tires.22

TABLE 9.19

Fuel-Grade Ethanol Speciﬁcations (Denatured)

Test

Non-Detergent Grade

Apparent proof, 60 F Speciﬁc gravity, 60/60 F Water, mass % Ethanol content (vol. %) Methanol (vol. %) Sulfur, mass % Benzene (vol. %) Oleﬁns (vol. %) Aromatics (vol. %) Chloride ion content (mg/l) Copper content (mg/kg) Acidity (as acetic acid, CH3COOH), mass % Appearance

200 (minimum)–203 (maximum) 0.7870–0.7950 0.50 (nominal) –0.82 (maximum) 92.1 minimum 0.50 maximum 0.0010 maximum 0.06 maximum 0.50 maximum 1.70 maximum 32 maximum 0.08 maximum 0.0070 maximum, 0.0042 maximum (shipments to Canada) Clear and bright, visibly free of suspended and/or settled contaminants 4.76 (maximum)–1.96 (minimum) 6.5 (minimum)–9.0 (maximum) 4.0 maximum 5.0 mg/100 ml max

Hydrocarbon denaturant pH Sulfate (mg/kg) Solvent-washed gum Source: Ref. (23).

REFERENCES

TABLE 9.20

153

Properties of Some Common Types of Asbestos Asbestos Type Chrysotile (Hydrated Mg silicate)

Chemical composition (essential elements) (%) SiO2 FeO Fe2O3 MgO Na2O H2O Physical characteristic Diameter of industrial ﬁber, mm Chemical resistance Fusion point ( C) Mechanical property (kg/mm2)

38–42 0–2 0.9–1.5 38–43 — 11–14 0.1–1

Resistance to alkalis 1500 50–200

Crocidolite (Fe and Na silicate)

Amosite (Fe and Mg silicate)

50–56 4–20 13–18 1–13 6–7 2–3 1–2

50 40 — 6.5 — 2 1–2

Resistance to acids 1000 75–225

Resistance to acids 1100 10–60

Source: Ref. (24).

The property of fuel-grade ethanol is of interest when reviewing the processes for the manufacture of ethanol from waste materials. The speciﬁcations for denatured fuel-grade ethanol are shown in Table 9.19.23 High-temperature gasiﬁcation processes have been developed for the destruction of asbestos waste. Asbestos is a natural mineral material that is ﬁbrous and crystallized. Properties of some common asbestos materials are shown in Table 9.20.24

REFERENCES 1. Westinghouse Plasma Corp, website, www.westinghouse-plasma.com, 04/01/2009. 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ofﬁce of Solid Waste (5306P), EPA530R-06-001, “Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2005 Facts and Figures”, October 2006. 3. Miller, C., “MSW 2007,” Waste Age, December 1, 2008. 4. “Renewable Energy Annual 1996,” Energy Information Administration, Ofﬁce of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, April 1997. 5. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Report: Iowa Statewide Waste Characterization Study, by R.W. Beck, January 2006. 6. Feed System Innovation for Gasiﬁcation of Locally Economical Alternative Fuels (FIGLEAF), Final Report: DOE Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-OONT40904,

154

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21.

22. 23. 24.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND PROPERTIES

U.S. DOE & NETL, Prepared by Michael L. Swanson, Mark A. Musich, Darren D. Schmidt and Joseph K. Schultz, Energy & Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, February 2003. Tchobanoglous, G., et. al., “Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues,” McGraw-Hill Science Engineering, January 1993. Heat Treatment International (HTI), Dutton, Michigan, 2008. Report prepared for City of Ames, Iowa, Electric Department, by Dr. Robert C. Brown, Director and Professor, Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, June 26, 2001. Leal-Quiros, E. “Plasma Processing of Municipal Solid Waste,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 34 (4B), 2004. Wochele, J., CAWAF, Composition and Analysis of Waste, Raw Material and Fuels, A data compilation of elemental analysis, PSI 2003. Themelis, N.J., Kim, Y.H. and Brady, Mark H., “Energy recovery from New York City solid wastes,” ISWA Journal: Waste Management and Research vol. 20, 223–233, 2002. Schwartz, S.C. and Brunner, C.R., “Energy and Resource Recovery Wastes,” Noyes Data Corp. , 1983. Vesilind, P.A., Worrell, W.A. and Reinhart, D.R., “Solid Waste Engineering,” Nelson Engineering, 2001. Higman, C. and van der Burgt, M., “Gasiﬁcation,” 2nd edition, Elsevier, 2008. Quaak, P., Knoef, H. and Stassen, H., “Energy from Biomass: A Review of Combustion and Gasiﬁcation Technologies,” World Bank, Washington, DC, 1999. DOE/NETL-2007/1260, Final Report, Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility, April 9, 2007. Channiwala, S.A. and Parikh, P.P., “A uniﬁed correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels,” Fuel, vol. 81 (8), pp. 1051–1063, (2002). Perry, R.H. and Chilton, C.H., “Chemical Engineer’s Handbook,” 5th edition, McGrawHill-Kogakusha, Tokyo, 1973. Vessia, O., Finden, P. and Skreiberg, O., “Biofuels From Lignocellulosic Material, In The Norwegian Context 2010, Technology, Potential and Costs,” Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), December 20, 2005. Wooley, R., Ruth, M., Sheehan, J., Ibsen, K., Majdeski, H. and Galvez, A., “Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), NREL/TP-580-26157, July 1999. Startech Environmental Corp., “Thermal Conversion of Wastes to Hydrogen for Fuel Cell Applications,” March 31, 2003, www.Startech.net. “Fuel-Grade Ethanol Speciﬁcations (Denatured),” Aventine Renewable Energy, Inc., Pekin, IL, March 14, 2007, www.aventinerei.com. Blary, F. and Rollin, M., “Vitriﬁcation of Asbestos Waste,” INERTAM, circa 1995.

CHAPTER 10

MSW Processes to Energy with High-Value Products and Specialty By-Products

Gasiﬁcation is an old technology used for the production of energy from solid materials. Even today, gasiﬁcation is an important technology and is becoming recognized as a technology for the management of municipal solid waste (MSW). In the general sense, gasiﬁcation is the conversion of a carbonaceous material into a gaseous product for the production of energy products and by-products in an oxygenstarved environment. The carbonaceous or “organic” material in MSW is processed in an oxygen-deﬁcient environment with heat to produce a syngas comprising mostly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). Chemical bonds of the carbonaceous materials (complex chemical compounds) break down with heat to produce the more simple and thermodynamically stable gaseous molecules of CO and H2. The inorganic or “mineral” materials are converted to a solid rocklike material called slag or vitriﬁed slag or ash.1,2,3 This chapter will discuss the various products from the gasiﬁcation of MSW with particular emphasis upon the high-value products and specialty by-products that can be produced or have great potential to be produced in the near future. The key factor to remember is that syngas contains the “basic building blocks, (CO and H2)” for the production of other chemicals, fuels, and materials through chemistry. The focus will be on the processes with potential to convert these basic building blocks into highvalue products and specialty by-products from the gasiﬁcation of MSW. In addition, some focus will be given to what high-value products can be made from the slag or vitriﬁed slag produced from the inorganic or “mineral” components of MSW. A typical process for the gasiﬁcation of MSW to syngas and slag or vitriﬁed slag is illustrated in Fig. 10.1. As mentioned, the organic components of MSW are converted into syngas, the primary product, and the mineral components are converted into slag or vitriﬁed slag or ash, a by-product. For some gasiﬁcation processes, some (limited) amount of oxygen is supplied to the gasiﬁcation reactor to provide heat in the form of

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

155

156

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

SYNGAS Cleanup

CLEAN SYNGAS

Synthesis Gas Options

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS)

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Biomass, Coal, Coke & Other Raw Materials and/or Air/Oxygen (limited) Steam/Water(sufficient)

Gasification Reactor Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Slag or Vitrified Slag or Ash

FIGURE 10.1

Specialty By-products Options

Gasiﬁcation of MSW to Syngas and Vitriﬁed Slag or Slag or Ash.

combustion heat necessary for the oxygen-deﬁcient reactions to produce syngas, which are endothermic reactions. Sufﬁcient steam/water is supplied to the gasiﬁcation reactor to promote some syngas reactions. Basic chemical reactions in the gasiﬁcation process for producing syngas are: C þ O2 ! CO2 C þ H2 O › CO þ H2

ðexothermicÞ ðendothermicÞ

ð10:1Þ ð10:2Þ

C þ 2H2 › CH4

ðexothermicÞ

ð10:3Þ

C þ CO2 ﬁ 2CO

ðendothermicÞ

ð10:4Þ

CO þ H2 O › CO2 þ H2 Cn Hm þ nH2 O › nCO þ ðn þ 1=2 mÞ H2

ðexothermicÞ ðendothermicÞ

ð10:5Þ ð10:6Þ

where for the steam methane (CH4) reforming reaction (where n ¼ 1 and m ¼ 4), Equation (10.6) becomes: CH4 þ H2 O › CO þ 3H2

ðendothermicÞ

ð10:7Þ

Note that an exothermic reaction produces heat (output) whereas an endothermic reaction requires heat (input). Also note that Equation (10.1) is a combustion reaction that is sometimes used in the gasiﬁcation process to provide some internal (in situ) process heat for the endothermic syngas reactions but only a (limited) amount of oxygen is supplied so the gasiﬁcation reactor environment remains conducive for

PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA (NH3) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

157

the production of syngas. The remaining process heat is supplied externally to the gasiﬁcation reactor, for example through the heat transfer surfaces of the reactor heating system. In the following text, the clean syngas will be presented as the starting point while discussing what uses or potential uses (synthesis gas options) can be derived from these simple chemical building blocks of chemistry, i.e., CO and H2.

PRODUCTION OF AMMONIA (NH3) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE Ammonia (NH3) is the second largest synthetic chemical product. Most of the NH3 produced is used to make fertilizers in the form of urea or ammonium salts (nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate). A small fraction of NH3 is used for the manufacture of organic chemical feedstocks for the plastics industry, such as polyamides, caprolactam, and others, and for the production of explosives (hydrazine, nitriles, etc.). NH3 is also converted to nitric acid and cyanides. The basic process steps for the industrial production of NH3 are synthesis gas production, gas conditioning, compressions, and NH3 synthesis. The purpose of the synthesis gas production and gas conditioning steps is to provide a clean H2 stream for input to the NH3 converter/synthesis reactor. About 50% of the H2 produced from syngas processes is used for NH3 production.4 NH3 can be produced from syngas via processes in existence. As an example, a somewhat simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram for NH3 production is illustrated in Fig. 10.2.5 Consider the feed stream to the process in Fig. 10.2 contains a clean syngas, nitrogen, and steam in proper stochiometric quantities for the NH3 synthesis. Next, a water–gas shift conversion reaction converts CO into H2 with a two-stage hightemperature shift reaction followed by a low-temperature shift reaction as shown in Equation (10.5). CO2 is removed from the gaseous stream in an absorber column, such as by using a hot potassium carbonate solution to absorb the carbon dioxide (CO2). Then, the CO2 is stripped off in a stripper with steam. CO and CO2 can poison the NH3 synthesis catalyst downstream; therefore removal is important, which explains the reason for conversion of CO into CO2 by Equation (10.5) and impurities of CO and CO2 into CH4 in the methanator by Equations (10.8 and 10.9). CO þ 3H2 › CH4 þ H2 O

ð10:8Þ

CO2 þ 4H2 › CH4 þ 2H2 O

ð10:9Þ

After removal of CO and CO2 via the methanator, the gaseous stream of H2 and N2 is cooled and excess steam is removed by condensation prior to becoming feed for the NH3 synthesis system. The gaseous stream is compressed and preheated prior to entering the NH3 synthesis reactor by exothermic reaction (Eq. (10.10). The basic design of the NH3 synthesis reactor is a pressure vessel with sections for catalyst beds and heat exchangers. The main design challenge is to remove the heat generated by the

158

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Clean SYNGAS & Nitrogen (N2) & Steam (H2O)

Water Gas Shift Reaction CO + H2O CO2 + H2

CO2

CO2 Waste Heat Boiler

Removal

Process condensate Methanation

Purge gas

Ammonia (NH3) Product Ammonia Synthesis

N2 + 3 H2

FIGURE 10.2 (NH3).5

2 NH3

Simpliﬁed Process Flow Diagram for Conversion of Syngas to Ammonia

exothermic synthesis reaction to control reactor temperature. Commercial NH3 synthesis catalysts are basically the same Fe-promoted catalysts developed many years ago. Recent developments in NH3 synthesis catalysts include Ru-based formulations that show promise. With effective cleanup and conditioning of the synthesis gas, catalyst lifetimes of 5–8 years are reported.4 N2 þ 3H2 › 2NH3

ð10:10Þ

Since the reaction is highly exothermic, maximum conversion at equilibrium occurs at high pressures and low temperatures. The ﬁnal NH3 is condensed, removed by a separator, and sent to storage.

PRODUCTION OF GAS TO LIQUIDS FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE A feasibility study was conducted that incorporates coal gasiﬁcation for the production of commercial-grade diesel and naphtha liquids by Fischer–Tropsch (F-T) technology. Summary of the plant’s performance, 50,000 barrel per day (bbl/day)

PRODUCTION OF GAS TO LIQUIDS FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

159

TABLE 10.1 Plant Performance Summary, Coal Gasiﬁcation to Diesel and Naphtha via F-T Parameter

Value

Coal feed ﬂow rate (tons/day) Diesel production (bbl/day) Naphtha production (bbl/day) Net plant power (MWe) Elemental sulfur production (tons/day) Slag (tons/day) CO2 capture, tons/day

24,533 27,819 22,173 124.3 612 2,470 32,481

Source: Ref. (6). Note: Net plant power is the excess power generated and available for export to the grid. CTL facility uses F-T technology using iron-based catalyst. Coal used in the plant is Illinois No. 6 bituminous. Gasiﬁcation uses ConocoPhillips’ E-Gas gasiﬁcation technology.

coal-to-liquids (CTL) facility, is shown in Table 10.1.6 Plant site size is approximately 300 acres. Although the process is about coal gasiﬁcation using ConocoPhillips’ E-Gas gasiﬁcation technology, the process technology used for conversion of the syngas from gasiﬁer into ﬁnished products via F-T synthesis utilizes much of the same technologies if other feedstocks were used. In addition, much of the gasiﬁer designs/technologies developed or under development are specialized or custom forms of the gasiﬁers originally used to commercialize coal gasiﬁcation. Thus, much can be learned and utilized from the conversion technology of coal gasiﬁcation, especially from syngas to energy/liquid-fuels. Thus, a process from CTL will be presented for understanding the downstream processing from syngas to liquid fuels. The liquid fuels produced from this CTL process are a commercial-grade diesel and naphtha liquids. The basic block ﬂow diagram used in the gasiﬁcation CTL study is shown in Fig. 10.3.6 The process is based upon the ConocoPhillips’ E-Gas gasiﬁcation technology and will be discussed with reference to Fig. 10.3. Coal, Illinois No. 6 bituminous coal is fed as a slurry to the gasiﬁer. The gasiﬁer is a two-stage, oxygen-blown, entrainedﬂow, refractory-lined gasiﬁer with continuous slag removal. An air separation unit (ASU) supplies 95 mole% pure oxygen to the gasiﬁers. The coal slurry reacts with oxygen in the primary stage at about 2,500 F and 500 psia. The oxygen is consumed in the ﬁrst stage undergoing partial combustion thereby producing heat that causes the gasiﬁcation reactions (oxygen starved) to proceed rapidly. The second stage of the gasiﬁer enhances the endothermic gasiﬁcation reactions and the exit temperature of around 1,900 F. Raw syngas exiting the gasiﬁer is cooled to about 700 F in a ﬁre-tube boiler. Any char and ﬂy ash produced in the second gasiﬁcation zone is entrained in the syngas stream and removed by the downstream cyclone and candle ﬁlter particulate control devices for return to the gasiﬁer. The ﬁlter is composed of ceramic candle elements and cleaned by back-pulsing with syngas. The raw syngas exists at about 700 F.

160

Vent

ASU

Gasifier

Slag

Oxygen To ATR

Water to Slurry & Blowdown

To FG

Mercury Removal

Hydrogen Recovery

Sour Water Stripper

Cooling, BFW Heating, COS Hydrolysis, Knockout

Wax Hydrocracking

Distillate Hydrotreating To FG

To FG

To FG

Steam

CO2

Distillate Pool

Clean Syngas

Syngas Compressor

Tail Gas to Gasifier

Final Processing To Marketable Diesel Fuel

Final Processing into Naphtha products

CO2

F-T Synthesis

ZnO Polishing

Naphtha Pool

CO2 Removal

F-T Liquids

Dehydration/ Compression

Aqueous Oxygenates

Autothermal Reforming (ATR)

Naphtha Hydrotreating

Hydrocarbon Recovery

To FG

Oxygen

Steam

Selexol H2 S / CO2 Removal

Claus Plant

FIGURE 10.3 Block Flow Diagram of Coal Gasiﬁcation to Syngas to Diesel and Naphtha Production.6 Some Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the Figure are: ASU, Air Separation Unit; ATR, Autothermal Reformer; BFW, Boiler Feed Water; FG, Fuel Gas; F-T, Fischer–Tropsch; AGR, Acid Gas Removal; COS, Carbonyl Sulﬁde; HCN, Hydrogen Cyanide; H2S, Hydrogen Sulﬁde; ZnO, Zinc Oxide; and CO2, Carbon Dioxide.

Air

Coal slurry

Syngas

Cooling, Cyclone, Filters

Scrubber

Recyle to Gasifier

Sulfur

PRODUCTION OF GAS TO LIQUIDS FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

TABLE 10.2

Properties of Illinois No. 6 Coal

Rank Seam Source

161

High Volatile Bituminous Illinois #6 (Herrin) Old Ben mine Proximate Analysis (wt.%) As Received

Moisture Ash Volatile matter Fixed carbon HHV, Btu/lb

11.12 9.70 34.99 44.19 11,666

Dry 0.00 10.91 39.37 49.72 13,126

Ultimate Analysis (wt.%) As Received Carbon Moisture Hydrogen Nitrogen Chlorine Sulfur Ash Oxygenb Total

63.75 11.12 4.50 1.25 0.29 2.51 9.70 6.88 100.00

Dry 71.72 0.00 5.06 1.41 0.33 2.82 10.91 7.75 100.00

Source: Ref. (6). a The above proximate analysis assumes that sulfur is volatile matter. b By difference.

Ash fuses at these conditions, and thus molten ash ﬂows out from the bottom of the gasiﬁer. The molten ash is then water quenched forming an inert vitreous slag. Coal fed to the gasiﬁers is an Illinois No. 6 bituminous coal with properties shown in Table 10.2.6 Raw syngas to the ﬁre-tube syngas cooler produces high-pressure steam for the steam turbine, which is part of the heat recovery system. Then the raw syngas enters a scrubber at 700 F for removing particulates and trace components. Next, the syngas stream is reheated and sent to a hydrolysis reactor where carbonyl sulﬁde (COS) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are converted to hydrogen sulﬁde (H2S). Then, the syngas enters a mercury removal system, Eastman Chemical, consisting of a packed bed of sulfur-impregnated activated carbon that removes mercury, arsenic, and trace materials. Following the mercury removal system, a selexol unit removes H2S and CO2 from the cool syngas. The polishing unit of zinc oxide (ZnO) effectively removes any residual H2S and achieves high purity of the syngas stream. This high-purity gaseous stream is shown as clean syngas at this stage of the process prior to entering the F-T synthesis unit. The clean syngas is sent to the F-T reactors to produce hydrocarbon liquids. The F-T systems distillation unit separates the liquid hydrocarbon products into basically naphtha, distillate, and wax fractions with the light components, fuel gas (FG), being

162

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

TABLE 10.3 Component Ar CH4 CO CO2 COS H2 H2O H2S N2 NH3 O2 SO2 Total

Compositions of Raw Syngas Stream and Clean Syngas Stream Raw Syngas (Mole Fraction)

Clean Syngas (Mole Fraction)

0.0100 0.0279 0.4040 0.1387 0.0005 0.2773 0.1193 0.0080 0.0120 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000

0.0136 0.0380 0.5495 0.0073 0.0000 0.3771 0.0001 0.0000 0.0144 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000

Source: Ref. (6).

used to produce electricity in gas turbines, GE 6FA units. Energy produced in the F-T system is effectively recovered and utilized in the process with a net excess of 124.3 MWe for export to the grid. Compositions of raw syngas downstream of the scrubber and clean syngas, as illustrated in Fig. 10.3, are shown in Table 10.3. The clean syngas feed to the F-T system mass rate is 2,510,720 lb/hour.6 The F-T process converts the clean syngas to hydrocarbon liquids using an iron-based F-T catalyst that also promotes the water–gas shift reaction (Eq. (10.5)) for H2 required in the F-T synthesis reaction (Eq. (10.11)). nCO þ 2nH2 ¼ Cn H2n þ nH2 O

ð10:11Þ

The F-T synthesis is carried out in F-T slurry-bed synthesis reactors. The slurry-bed F-T synthesis reactors convert the CO and H2 into hydrocarbons, CO2, and water. Naphtha fraction from the distillation unit is further processed in a catalytic hydrotreating unit for ﬁnal conversion to naphtha products. The distillate and wax fractions are converted in the catalytic hydrotreating and catalytic hydrocracking units, respectively. Then, these two streams are combined and further processed into a marketable diesel fuel. The overall compounds in the naphtha and distillate pools shown in Fig. 10.3 are shown in Tables 10.4 and 10.5, respectively. The F-T diesel is a high-value product, since it is free of sulfur, nitrogen, and aromatics. As a ﬁnal comment on this process for CTL, the environmental control equipment was based upon best available control technology (BACT) guidelines. The 2006 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations are shown in Table 10.6.6 BACT

PRODUCTION OF GAS TO LIQUIDS FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

163

TABLE 10.4 Naphtha Components Product Distribution (Liquid Volume)

Naphtha Products C5–C6 (parafﬁns) C7 þ to 300 F boiling point 300 to 350 F boiling point

38% 48% 14%

Source: Ref. (6). Note: Production: 22,173 Bbl/day Naphtha Production.

TABLE 10.5 Diesel Components Product Distribution (Liquid Volume)

Diesel Products 300–500 F boiling point 500 þ F boiling point

42% 58%

Source: Ref. (6). Note: Production: 27,819 Bbl/day Diesel Production.

TABLE 10.6 Current Regulations of 2006 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Emission Limit PM SO2 NOx

6

0.015 lb/10 Btu 1.4 lb/MWh 1.0 lb/MWh

% Reduction 99.9% 95% N/A

Source: Ref. (6).

TABLE 10.7

Gasiﬁcation Technologies and BACT Guidelines

Pollutant

Control Technology

Limit

Sulfur

Selexol/Econamine Plus/ Sulﬁnol-M þ Claus plant Low-NOx burners and dilution Cyclone/barrier ﬁlter/wet scrubber/AGR absorber Activated carbon bed

99 þ % or less than or equal to 0.050 lb/106 Btu 15 ppmvd (@ 15% O2) 0.006 lb/106 Btu

NOx PM Hg

95% removal

Source: Ref. (6).

technologies have speciﬁc emission limits and corresponding control equipment as shown in Table 10.7.6 The BACT technologies of this process study meet the emission requirement of the 2006 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

164

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

PRODUCTION OF METHANOL (CH3OH) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE Methanol is a clear biodegradable liquid. Methanol is used in many industrial and consumer products such as synthetic textiles, recyclable plastics, household paints, adhesives, foam cushions, and pillows and medicines. The market is expanding for the use of methanol in biodiesel production. Other uses of methanol are in the manufacture of: silicones, refrigerants, specialty plastics and coatings, methanol-based windshield antifreeze, formaldehyde, and acrylic plastic. Global methanol market is sometimes tight between supply and demand. Methanol is a commodity chemical and one of the top ten chemicals produced globally. Consumption for year 2008 was 44,763,000 metric tonne, and supply was 45,433,000 metric tonne.7,8,9 The majority of methanol is currently synthesized from syngas. Catalytic methanol synthesis from syngas is produced via a high-temperature, high-pressure, exothermic, and equilibrium-limited reaction for conversion efﬁciency of 99%. Removing the excess heat of reaction and thermodynamic limitations are challenges in the commercial synthesis of methanol.4 The production of methanol will be discussed here by starting with the necessary syngas (CO and H2) without elaborating on the technology of generating the syngas. Methanol is produced by the chemical reactions in Equations (10.12 and 10.13).10 CO þ 2H2 › CH3 OH

ð10:12Þ

CO2 þ 3H2 › CH3 OH þ H2 O

ð10:13Þ

Syngas is desirable at a pressure of 50–100 bar over a copper catalyst and with a composition of 3 mole% CO2, a stoichiometric ratio (SR) of 2.03 ¼ (H2–CO2)/ (CO–CO2), H2S at <0.1 ppm, and inerts plus CH4 at a minimum. By starting with the clean syngas, the process for the manufacture of methanol (CH3OH) can be basically understood by the block ﬂow diagram in Fig. 10.4. The proper SR of gaseous feed to the methanol synthesis systems is created by mixing a bypass of syngas with a portion of syngas modiﬁed by the water–gas shift reaction (Eq. (10.5)). After the water–gas shift conversion, CO2 is ﬁrst removed by the CO2

CO2

Clean SYNGAS

CO2 Rectisol

CO Shift

Methanol (CH3OH) Synthesis & Distillation

Methanol (CH3OH) Product

Water Gas Shift Reaction CO + H2 O

CO2 + H2

CO + 2 H2 CO2 + 3 H2

FIGURE 10.4

CH3OH CH3OH + H2O

Simpliﬁed Block Flow Diagram (BFD) of Syngas to Methanol (CH3OH).11

PRODUCTION OF METHANOL (CH3OH) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

165

TABLE 10.8 Gaseous Feedstock for Methanol Synthesis System Feedstock Component

Mole%11

Mole%10

CO2 CO H2 CH4 Inerts N2 Ar (H2–CO2)/(CO þ CO2)

3.52 27.86 67.97 0.21 0.44 — — 2.05

3.50 27.59 67.24 0.86 — 0.33 0.48 2.05

Source: Refs. (10,11).

Rectisol process. The end result is a mixture of bypassed syngas with water–gas shift conversion with CO2 removal gas which has a SR of about 2.03. This feed gaseous mixture is then fed to the methanol synthesis system for the production of methanol via Equations (10.12 and 10.13). The ﬁnal product methanol (CH3OH) is recovered by distillation.11 An example of gaseous feedstock for the methanol synthesis system is shown in Table 10.8.10 Further details for the methanol synthesis process are illustrated in the simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram for conversion of clean syngas to methanol (Fig. 10.5). A sidestream of clean syngas is converted to proper H2 and CO by a Lurgi CO shift process followed by CO2 removal using a CO2 Rectisol process. A bypass stream of clean syngas is then mixed with the gaseous stream exiting the Rectisol process to form a gaseous feedstock mixture with the proper composition, i.e., SR. The feedstock is converted into methanol (CH3OH) in the methanol synthesis reactor. The methanol synthesis process is followed by distillation step to produce a methanol product for the marketplace.11 The CO shift conversion unit reacts CO with steam (H2O) to form H2 and CO2 by water–gas shift reaction (Eq. (10.5)). The water–gas shift reaction is exothermic and supplies an appreciable amount of the thermodynamic steam requirements for the reaction. A two-stage reactor system, Lurgi CO Shift Process, is shown using a conventional shift catalyst. Awidely used commercial isothermal methanol converter is the Lurgi methanol converter. It is a shell and tube design and the tubes contain a proprietary Lurgi methanol catalyst (Cu/ZnO/Cr2O3 þ promoters) surrounded by boiling water. Varying the pressure of the boiling water controls the reactor temperature. By-product steam is produced at 40–50 bar and can be used to run the compressor or provide heat for the distillation process. These units can operate at 50–100 bar and 230–265 C. Commercial methanol synthesis catalysts have lifetimes of about 3–5 years under normal operating conditions.4 The CO2 rectisol removal system is a physical washing unit consisting of a CO2 absorber. The CO2 removal section operates at temperatures around 60 C. After mixing the slip-stream clean syngas bypass with the syngas of the water–gas shift conversion followed by CO2 removal, the feedstock with proper SR is sent to

Clean SYNGAS

Saturator

Reactor 2

CO2 + H2

Cooler

CO2

CO2 Flash Column

Fuel Gas

Purge Gas

CO2 Rectisol Process

To Absorber

CO2 Absorber

Waste Heat Recovery

From Regenerator

Fuel Gas

Condenser

Air Cooler

Light Ends Column

Crude Methanol

Final Cooler

Recycle Gas Compressor

Steam/ Reformed Gas Reboiler

Expansion Gas Vessel

Separator

Synthesis Gas Compressor

Off Gas Cooler

Blow down

BFW

Final Condenser

Air Cooler

Methanol (CH3OH) Product

Pure Methanol Column 2 Atmospheric

Saturated Steam

Pure Methanol Column 1 Elevated Pressure

Methanol Reactor

Steam/ Reformed Gas Reboiler

Light Ends

Steam Drum

FIGURE 10.5 Simpliﬁed Process Flow Diagram for Conversion of Syngas to Methanol (CH3OH).11

Lurgi CO Shift Process

CO + H2O

Reactor 1

Process Steam

Shift Gas

Condensate

Cooler

Reboiler/ Condenser

166

PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS (SNG)

167

a Lurgi low-pressure methanol process. The SR is (H2 CO2)/(CO þ CO2) and lies in the practical process range for the speciﬁc plant design. Operating pressure of the methanol synthesis can be between 50 bar and somewhat higher. A tubular reactor can be used for conversion of the carbon oxides, CO and CO2, and H2 into methanol via reactions (Eqs. (10.12) and (10.13)). A steam pressure of around 40 bar corresponds to an exit gas temperature of 250 C. The unconverted gas with methanol leaves the reactor system and is cooled whereby the methanol (CH3OH) is condensed as crude methanol liquid. The crude methanol is separated out using a separator and fed to the distillation section. Some gas from the separator is purged and the remainder is fed back into the methanol reactor system. Crude methanol is processed into ﬁnished product in the three-column distillation system. The crude methanol is sent to an expansion gas vessel where a small amount of light components and dissolved gases are ﬂashed off and used as a FG. Low-boiling impurities are removed in the light crude column and methanol puriﬁed in the elevated-pressure pure methanol column-1. The ﬁnal pure methanol column-2 is at atmospheric pressure and puriﬁes the methanol by distillation to the ﬁnal desired methanol product speciﬁcations. Speciﬁcations for U.S. Federal Grade AA methanol are methanol purity of >99.85 wt.% and water of <0.10 wt.%.

PRODUCTION OF SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS (SNG) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE Periodic or perceived shortages of natural gas (CH4) have created much interest in gasiﬁcation technology for use in the production of SNG. One project that is operational is in Beulah, North Dakota and was started by the Dakota Gasiﬁcation Company. The facility, Great Plains Synfuels Plant, was created from the abundant lignite resources underlying the North Dakota plains. The facility operates and produces more than 54 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas annually. Coal consumption is 6 þ million tons per year. SNG leaves the plant through a 2-footdiameter pipeline to a major pipeline to supply thousands of homes and businesses. Other synfuels are also produced at this plant.12–16 SNG consists predominately of CH4. The SNG is synthesized by reacting syngas (CO and H2) over a nickel catalyst via Equations (10.8 and 10.9), i.e., CO þ 3H2 ¼ CH4 þ H2O, 206 MJ/kmol and CO2 þ 4H2 ¼ CH4 þ 2H2O, 165 MJ/kmol, respectively. Both reactions are exothermic. Reaction chemistry requires an SR ¼ (H2/(3CO þ 4CO2) of between 0.98 to 1.03.10,17 In Fig. 10.6, the gasiﬁcation process for synthesis of SNG begins with crude syngas (CO and H2).12 Crude syngas stream discharges from the gasiﬁer into a scrubber that scrubs and partially cools the crude syngas. Condensables from the gaseous stream are also removed. The crude gas stream is then divided whereby about half or more goes to the gas cooling unit. The remaining portion of the crude gas stream goes to the shift conversion units where steam is added for the waster gas shift reaction (Eq. (10.5)).

168

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY Cleaned Vent Gas after Incineration Sulfur Plant

Sulfur

Rectisol Plant

Cooling

Naphtha

Steam Compression Crude SYNGAS from Gasifier

Scrubbers & Partial Cooling

Shift Conversion

Cooling

Water Gas Shift Reaction CO 2 + H 2 CO + H2O

Methanation Condensates CO + 3 H2

Tar, Oil & Gas Liquor

CO2 + 4 H2

Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG)

CH4 + H2 O CH4 + 2 H2 O

FIGURE 10.6 Simpliﬁed Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Syngas (CO and H2) to Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG).12

The waster gas shift reaction is catalytic, exothermic, and sulfur resistant. Some catalyst deterioration occurs but carbon deposition requires a periodic reactivation of the catalyst. The shifted crude gas enters a cooling unit and then is combined with the bypassed crude gas prior to entering the rectisol unit. The combined gaseous stream (crude synthesis gas) has a H2 to CO ratio of about 3.5, which is acceptable for methanation. The crude synthesis gas contains sulfur compounds, such as H2S, COS, and CS2. It also contains amounts of vapor and gaseous components such as naphtha, NH3, and HCN. The gas enters the rectisol unit and is very important for preparing the crude synthesis gas for proper purity requirements for the methanation unit. The rectisol unit must remove all sulfur compounds and provide a clean synthesis gas. The rectisol unit is capable of removing impurities in the crude synthesis gas and some CO2 as required for the nickel catalyst. Crude synthesis gas entering the rectisol unit passes to a cold methanol wash where residual water and naphtha are removed. The naphtha-free gas enters the absorber where H2S and COS are removed. The heat of absorption is removed by refrigeration and the temperature of the cold methanol wastes can be between 20 F and 50 F. Some of the absorbed gases are removed from methanol by multistage ﬂashes in the regenerator and the remainder stripped in the hot regenerator. The off-gas streams are collected and sent to the sulfur recovery unit. Gas leaving the rectisol unit is clean synthesis gas. Naphtha is recovered from the methanol and water by naphtha extraction and an azeotropic column. Methanol is recovered in a methanol–water distillation column. From the rectisol unit, clean synthesis gas is fed to the methanator reactor unit. The methanator converts low-BTU synthesis gas (375–430 BTU/cu.ft.) to a CH4 rich, high-BTU gas of about 980 BTU/cu.ft. by the exothermic catalytic reactions (Eqs. 10.8 and 10.9).

PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN (H2) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE(S)

169

TABLE 10.9 Product Composition and Heating Value of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Component H2 CH4 CO CO2 N2 þ Ar Total

Mole% (% by Volume) 3.00 95.95 0.05 0.40 0.60 100.00 Higher Heating Value of the gas: 1027 BTU/SCF

Source: Ref. (12)

The feed gas entering the methanation reactors is passed through a ﬁxed bed containing a pelleted reduced-type nickel catalyst. The temperature rise of the reactors is controlled and maintained by recycling of methanated efﬂuent gas by mixing with feed gas. The reaction heat is removed by waste heat exchangers at the outlet of each reactor. The gas leaving the synthesis loop is passed through a cleanup reactor to completely convert any remaining CO. Finally, the gas leaving the methanator unit is cooled to condense out water and sent to the gas compression unit. The ﬁnal moisture is removed from the gas with a glycol dehydration unit following compression. The gas is then SNG and is ready for distribution to a pipeline and ﬁnal distribution to customers. Composition of the SNG product is shown in Table 10.9.

PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN (H2) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE(S) H2 is a large market and covers a wide range of industries such as the petroleum, food, chemical, metals, reﬁning, and electronics. About half of the H2 produced today is from steam reforming of natural gas. Annual production of H2 in year 2006 by source was: natural gas, 24 million tonnes/year; oil, 15 million tonnes/year; coal, 9 million tonnes/year; and electrolysis, 2 million tonnes/year for a total of 50 million tonnes/ year. Nearly half of the H2 is produced in the United States, China, and Europe, each producing 18%, 16%, and 14%, respectively.18,19,20 Current technologies produce H2 from coal, H2 from natural gas, and H2 from photovoltaic (PV)/water electrolysis. Methods considered here would be those starting with syngas (CO and H2) and presenting a technology either current or advanced for the production of a H2 product. H2 production is the largest use of syngas. H2 is mainly consumed for NH3 production followed by reﬁning and methanol production.4

170

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Steam

Crude SYNGAS from Gasifier

Gas Scrubber & Partial Cooling

Shift Conversion Water Gas Shift Reaction CO + H 2O CO2 + H2

Gas Cleaning

CO2 Removal

PSA

H2S Sulfur Recovery (Claus Plant)

Recycle Solids

Hydrogen (H2) Product

Tail Gas

Sulfur

CO2

Plant Power

Tail Gas

Power Generation

Net Power to Grid

FIGURE 10.7 Simpliﬁed Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Syngas (CO and H2) to H2.18,21,22

In Fig. 10.7, a Texaco quench gasiﬁcation system produces a crude syngas with conventional scrubbing, cooling, shift conversion, acid gas removal, CO2 removal, and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) for the H2 recovery. Crude syngas is produced from gasiﬁcation of coke in the gasiﬁer. The crude syngas exits the gasiﬁer and proceeds to a gas scrubber and partial cooling. Syngas then proceeds to a shift conversion that is supplied with process steam for the water–gas shift reaction. After conversion, the gaseous stream enters the gas cleaning unit for removal of sulfur compounds for ﬁnal production of high-purity sulfur in a Claus plant. Next, approximately half of the CO2 is removed from the gaseous stream in the CO2 removal unit prior to the PSA unit that generates a tail gas fuel. The PSA system produces a H2 product with purity exceeding 95%. The PSA unit can obtain H2 purity greater than 99.99%.4 In this manner, a commercially proven technology is used effectively to convert coke into H2, power, and steam.18,21,22 Another approach to the production of H2 is shown in Fig. 10.8. Advanced E-Gas gasiﬁcation technology of ConocoPhillips is used in combination with a ceramic membrane system operating at 600 C. This membrane technology is capable of shifting and separating H2 from the syngas. Assumptions have been made that 90 mole% of the syngas is converted to H2 in the membrane system. The remaining syngas contains mostly CO2 and some CO and H2. This remaining syngas is sent to a combustor and combusted with Oxygen (O2) to form a rich stream of CO2 that passes to a gas turbine for generation of power for the plant. The hot exhaust gases from the gas turbine proceed to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) that generates process steam for the plant. The process generates excess power for sale to the grid.18,23 The hot raw syngas from the gasiﬁer is ﬁrst cleaned of larger particulates in a cyclone and then cooled in a ﬁre-tube boiler to 1,100 F. Then, the syngas is sent to the hot gas sulfur removal unit that removes sulfur compounds from the syngas. After exiting the candle ﬁlter, the clean syngas is mixed with steam/water and proceeds to the tube-side H2 separation device where high-purity H2 is produced from water–gas shift reaction. Final H2 product is produced with a purity of >99.5%. A pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit can obtain H2 purity greater than 99.99%.4

PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN (H2) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE(S) O2 Combustor

902 psia 2100oF

Water 950 psia 1112 oF 1020 psia 1905 oF

Pittsburgh #8 Coal Water

HX

Oxygen Blown Entrained Bed Gasifier

1100oF Hot Gas 1100oF Sulfur Removal

Sulfuric Acid Plant

Conventional Expander

Tube Side H2 Separation Device

Candle Filter

Steam

171

Power 84 MW

HRSG 20 psia 894oF

20 psia 1112 oF

CO2 20.5 psia > 90% CO2

HRSG

O2 Air

ASU

H2SO4

Hydrogen (H2) Product > 99.5% H2 346 psia

FIGURE 10.8 Simpliﬁed Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Coal to Syngas (CO and H2) to H2.18,23

A more detailed process description is discussed now for more insight into this process to produce a high-purity H2 product from the syngas produced by a gasiﬁer. The hot raw syngas leaves the gasiﬁer and is cooled from 1,905 F to 1,100 F by ﬁrst being cleaned of larger particulates in a cyclone and then cooled in a ﬁre-tube boiler to 1,100 F before entering the hot gas desulfurization (hot gas sulfur removal) and particulate removal (candle ﬁlter). The hot gas sulfur removed is converted to sulfuric acid (H2SO4). In the next process step, the desulfurized and particulate removal of syngas at 605 F is carried out by a hydrogen separator device (HSD), which is a hightemperature membrane device in a shell and tube conﬁguration. The membrane is composed of inorganic membrane tubes with pore sizes of speciﬁc diameters. The inorganic membrane can be made of Al2O3 or other ceramic materials. The membrane acts similar to a molecular sieve that excludes molecules of larger diameters. The syngas with added steam enters the tube side of the HSD, which has gas contact catalytic properties for promotion of the water–gas shift reaction. With excess steam present, the water–gas shift reaction is toward conversion of CO and H2O to CO2 and H2. The H2 passes through the membrane, which also promotes the water–gas shift reaction to replenish the H2 passed through the membrane. The H2 rich gas exits the HSD at 1,112 F and 20 psia. Several stages are arranged to the tube side exit will be a rich stream of CO2 (retentate) and the shell side H2 rich gas will be collected together as H2-rich (permeate). The CO2-rich gas (retentate) leaving the HSD is an FG containing about 5% of the fuel value of the inlet syngas stream. The FG goes to a gas turbine combustor and is reacted with oxygen to convert CO and H2 to CO2 and H2O. The hot gas is expanded in a conventional gas turbine expander to produce electric power. The gas exiting the gas

172

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

TABLE 10.10

Performance of Coal to Hydrogen Plant

Coal feed Oxygen feed (95%) Hydrogen product stream CO2 product stream Sulfuric acid product Gross power production Auxiliary power requirement Net power production (to grid)

221,631 lb/hr 224,519 lb/hr 35,903 lb/hr 582,566 lb/hr 19,482 lb/hr 84 MW 77 MW 7 MW (Note: 8.3% of power generated is sold to grid.)

Source: Ref. (23).

turbine expander is cooled in an HRSG to produce steam for use in the plant as process steam. The CO2-rich stream is cooled to 100 F, dewatered, and sent off-site. The CO2-rich stream is >90% CO2. The H2-rich (retentate) stream leaving the HSD is at 1,112 F and 20 psia. Note that the gas enters the HSD at 605 F and exits at 1,112 F as a result of the exothermic water–gas shift reaction. The hot H2-rich gas is cooled by an HRSG and compressed to 346 psia for a H2 product of high purity (>99.5%). Steam is produced in the HRSG and is used as process steam in the plant. Performance of this process as evaluated is shown in Table 10.10. The process units are described in detail to get a better understanding of the process equipment involved in this new technology.23 Gasiﬁer The gasiﬁer used in this study was a Destec high-pressure entrained ﬂow gasiﬁer that consists of two stages to gasify a coal–water slurry feed with oxygen. The slurry is prepared by grinding coal to about 200 mesh and mixing it with water to about 65 wt. % solids to 35 wt.% water. Operation in two stages permits an adjustment of ﬂows to the gasiﬁer to achieve a desired outlet temperature of the crude syngas. Typical operating temperature of the Destec gasiﬁer is 1,900 F, which represents a 78/22 ﬂow split between the ﬁrst and second stages. Slag is formed in the ﬁrst stage and ﬂows to the bottom where it falls into a water bath and is cooled into a shattered inert material. Gas leaving the gasiﬁer at 1,905 F enters a cyclone that separates entrained particulates from the gaseous stream for recycle to the gasiﬁer. A ﬁre-tube boiler cools the gaseous stream leaving the cyclone to about 1,100 F. Air Separation Unit (ASU) The ASU is a conventional cryogenic ASU. The ASU is designed to produce 95% pure O2. The high-pressure plant is designed with liquefaction and liquid oxygen storage to supply the plant.

PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN (H2) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE(S)

173

Hot Gas Cleanup System The hot gas cleanup system consists of a desulfurizer reactor with a riser tube, a disengager, and a standpipe for both the absorber section and regeneration section. A sorbent from the absorber passes through the regenerator riser, disengages, and transfers back to the absorber through the standpipe. Regeneration is done with neat air to minimize heat release and limit temperature. The regeneration heat has negligible effect on the sorbent temperature in the absorber. The regeneration off-gas contains predominantly SO2 and is sent to the sulfuric acid plant. Any particles are separated by high-efﬁciency cyclones at the top of the absorber. A candle ﬁlter downstream removes any remaining particulates. Sulfuric Acid Plant This sulfuric acid plant is a double-absorption contact process using an intermediate absorber in a four-pass converter developed by Monsanto. The conversion of SO2 to SO3 is an exothermic reaction. The contact plant uses a vanadium catalyst and takes advantage of mass transfer considerations by ﬁrst allowing the gases to pass over a part of the catalyst and at 800 F and then allowing the temperature to increase as the reaction proceeds. The reaction essentially stops from mass transfer considerations when the temperature reaches 1,100 F. The gas is cooled in a waste heat boiler and then passed over subsequent stages of the catalyst until the gas temperature does not exceed 800 F. The gases pass through about three layers of catalyst and are cooled before passing through an intermediate absorber tower where some SO3 is removed with 98% H2SO4. Gases leaving the absorber are then heated and passed through the remaining layers of catalyst in the converter. The gases are then cooled and pass through the ﬁnal absorber tower where more than 99.7% of the SO2 is converted into SO3 and ﬁnally sulfuric acid (H2SO4) product. CO2-Rich Separated Gas Stream/Conventional Turbine Expander The FG leaving the HSD (tube side H2 separation device) has a fuel value of about 15 BTU/scf. A conventional expansion turbine extracts the energy from the gaseous stream and produces power and steam. The FG stream (CO and H2) is combusted with oxygen (O2) forming CO2 and water (H2O) vapor. Water is injected into the combustor to moderate the stream temperature to about 2,100 F to be compatible with the conventional turbine expander. The turbine expander reduces the gas pressure to 20 psia and temperature to 905 F. Power of 84 MW is produced by the generator. In-plant power requirements require 77 MW, leaving 7 MW for sale to the grid, which amounts to selling about 8.3% of the electricity generated by the plant as saleable electrical energy to the grid. The gas leaving the conventional expander enters a HRSG where it is cooled to 250 F in the process of producing steam for process plant use. The CO2-rich product leaving the HRSG is cooled to 100 F and dried before sending it off-site.

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

174

CO2 Product 20.5 psia > 99% CO2

Steam

1905oF

Pittsburgh #8 Coal Water

HX

Oxygen Blown Entrained Bed Gasifier

625oF

Candle Filter

Shift Converter

625oF 400 psia

Air

CO2 Removal

2-Stage Acid Gas Removal

Air O2

H2 S Removal

Sulfuric Acid Plant

PSA

Tail/Fuel Gas

Oxygen

Hydrogen (H2) Product > 99.5% H2 346 psia

Stack

Boiler/ Power Plant

(Concentrated CO2 stack gas)

(fired HRSG)

ASU H2SO4

FIGURE 10.9 Hydrogen.23

Net Power 12 MW

Block Flow Diagram for Conventional Process from Coal to Syngas to

In summation, 221,631 lb/hr of coal is gasiﬁed to a syngas (CO and H2) and further processed into marketable products: H2, sulfuric acid, and net power for export to the grid. H2 production is 35,903 lb/hr at >99.5% purity. Sulfuric acid production is 19,482 lb/hr. Net power production for export sale to the grid is 7 MW of electricity, which is 8.3% of the total electricity generated by the plant, i.e., a total of 84 MW. Another conceptual design was done to convert coal to H2 with CO2 removal using conventional gas stream processing. This process is illustrated in Fig. 10.9. With E-Gas technology using Destec gasiﬁer, coal is gasiﬁed and the high-pressure syngas is produced, which exits the gasiﬁer at 1,905 F. The exit temperature from the gasiﬁer is controlled by adjustments in the second stage of the gasiﬁer. The syngas proceeds to the ﬁre-tube heat exchanger and is cooled to 625 F. Next, the ceramic candle ﬁlter removes particulates. The following step used a sulfur-tolerant catalyst in the shift converter to promote the water–gas shift reaction, i.e., CO þ H2O › CO2 þ H2. The gas is then cleaned of sulfur compounds and CO2 in a double-stage selexol unit. H2S from the acid gas removal system is converted into sulfuric acid in the sulfuric acid plant. H2 is puriﬁed by the PSA unit producing a H2 product with purity of >99.5% and pressure of 346 psia. Tail/FG from the PSA unit is combusted with oxygen in a boiler (ﬁred HRSG) power plant to produce power for the plant and net power for sale to the grid. The stack will also contain a concentrated CO2 stream as a result of using the tail/FG from the PSA unit as fuel with oxygen in the boiler/power plant. Any steam produced from hot gas cooling and energy recovered by any HRSG is used to produce steam and power for the plant and any excess will be exported for sale. In summation, this conventional H2 plant with CO2 removal produces a high-purity CO2 stream and a high-purity H2 stream as shown in Table 10.11. These processes for the production of H2 from the gasiﬁcation of coal and other carbonaceous materials as feedstocks will continue to be developed and reﬁned. The beneﬁts of these processes are the direct result of producing a high-purity product of H2 and CO2. Both of these simple materials are some of the key building blocks or raw

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL (CH3CH2OH) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

TABLE 10.11 to Hydrogen

175

Performance of Conventional Process Plant for Coal

Coal feed (dry basis) Plant size

2500 tpd 317.8 tons H2/day, 114 MMscfd @346 psia 6233 tpd 12 MW

CO2 product stream Net power production (to grid) Source: Ref. (23).

materials in chemistry for the production of industrial and consumer products by various chemical and/or biochemical processes.

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL (CH3CH2OH) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE Production of Ethanol and Methanol from Syngas using Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis Process Waste solids can be gasiﬁed to syngas (CO & H2) and then converted to fuels such as ethanol and methanol mixture by F-T synthesis. A process for this option to produce ethanol for use as a fuel is shown in Fig. 10.10. MSW was gasiﬁed using a Plasma Arc gasiﬁer to produce a syngas. Selected Synthesis Gas Option Syngas Cleanup

Catalyst

Ethanol / Methanol Alcohols

Distillation

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS) Ethanol

Ethanol Fuel Blend Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Other Wastes Biomass & Materials

Plasma Arc Gasification Reactor

Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Vitrified Slag Saleable as: + Road material + Building material + Other recycleable materials

FIGURE 10.10

Selected Synthesis Gas Options for Syngas.3

Methanol

Biodiesel Production

176

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

The clean syngas can be used to produce power generation for use in the plant such as electricity and steam while the remainder can be used to produce liquid fuels. These liquid fuels can be ethanol or methanol or a mixture of these alcohols via F-T synthesis. From a mixture of ethanol and methanol, a distillation system can separate the ethanol for blending with gasoline for use as a motor fuel and the methanol for manufacturing biodiesel.3 A similar approach was presented but with water being adsorbed by molecular sieves before the distillation step involves separation of the alcohol mixture into three streams: methanol, ethanol, and a mixture of higher-molecular-weight alcohols. A thermochemical process such as the F-T process determined in a study that ﬁrst drying the entire mixed alcohol stream before any separation would be preferable. The water was adsorbed by molecular sieves and then desorbed by depressurization and ﬂushing with methanol. The resulting methanol/water mixture from ﬂushing of the molecular sieves is recycled back into the process. The dry mixture of alcohols stream exiting the molecular sieve dehydrator is fed to the ﬁrst column of a two-column distillation system. The distillation system consists of typical columns using trays, overhead condensers, and reboilers. The dry feed alcohol mixture is separated in the ﬁrst column, with 99% of the incoming ethanol recovered in the overhead with nearly all the methanol. The bottom stream contains 99% of the incoming propanol, 1% of incoming ethanol, and all of the butanol and pentanol. This bottom stream from the ﬁrst column is considered a by-product of the plant. The methanol/ethanol overhead stream from the ﬁrst column is sent to the second distillation column. The ethanol recovered in the second column as bottom stream consists of 99% of the incoming ethanol with a 0.5 mole% methanol concentration (maximum), and therefore the bottom stream meets speciﬁcations as an ethanol fuel. The methanol and small amount of ethanol exits as an overhead stream from the second column. Thus in summation, the dehydrated (water removed) alcohol mixture from the F-T synthesis is sent to a conventional two-column distillation system whereby the mixture is separated into three product streams: ethanol stream, methanol stream, and higher alcohol(s) stream.24,25 Another study presents the mixture of ethanol and methanol as about 60% ethanol and 40% methanol. A yield of this alcohol mixture was taken conservatively at 95 gallons per ton MSW (dry material). With a Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation facility of 500 tons per day of MSW, about 10.4 million gallons per year of the alcohol mixture would be produced. Further improvements in this technology could permit a yield of 113 gallons of mixture per ton MSW (dry material). At the higher yield, the alcohol mixture produced would be 12.4 million gallons per year.3 By-products of HCl and sulfur produced from the syngas cleanup system would be sold to industry. The inorganic materials and minerals of the waste solids are converted to a vitriﬁed slag in the gasiﬁcation process and exit the bottom of the plasma arc gasiﬁer. The vitriﬁed slag is composed of metals and silica glass. The vitriﬁed slag is basically nonleaching and exceeds EPA leach test standards such as by conducting the toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP). Consequently, the vitriﬁed slag can be sold as a road construction material.3

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL (CH3CH2OH) FROM SYNGAS VIA CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

177

TABLE 10.12 Process Conditions for Mixed Alcohol Synthesis via F-T catalysis Parameter

Process Condition

Temperature Pressure H2/CO ratio CO2 concentration Sulfur concentration

300 C 1500–2000 psia 1.0–1.2 0.0%–7% (mole%) 50–100 ppmv

Source: Ref. (27).

On the subject of producing an alcohol mixture using syngas via the F-T catalysts, the technology of a modiﬁed F-T catalyst will be discussed at this time, speciﬁcally a molybdenum-disulﬁde-based (MoS2) catalyst. This catalyst is by Dow/UCC and is interesting due to its relatively high ethanol selectivity and with some production of linear alcohols. The catalyst uses a high surface area of MoS2 promoted by alkali metal sales (potassium carbonate) and cobalt (CoS). These aspects of the catalyst promote the shift from hydrocarbons to alcohols. Also, the catalyst can be supported on alumina or activated carbon or be used unsupported. Parameters of the catalyst for the use of the synthesis process are shown in Table 10.12. Maintaining a reactor temperature is important, since the reactions are highly exothermic. The temperature has an impact on the selectivity of the alcohol and product distribution. High pressures typically favor alcohol production. MoS2 catalysts are efﬁcient F-T catalysts at ambient or low pressures. But, raising the pressure and pH helps to shift the pathway from hydrocarbons towards alcohol production. It has been reported that CO2 concentration elevated to 30 vol.% can decrease the conversion of CO but not alter the alcohol/hydrocarbon ratio. Thus, recycling unconverted syngas should be viewed with caution so as to avoid a buildup in CO2 concentrations accumulating to unacceptable value, thereby negatively impacting the yield for the desired alcohol. CO2 concentrations up to 6.7 vol.% appear acceptable but can decrease somewhat the chain alcohol yield relative to the methanol yield. A CO2 concentration of 5 mole% is recommended when conditioning the syngas prior to the F-T synthesis reactor. One of the major beneﬁts of the catalyst being discussed is the sulfur tolerance.25,26 The overall reaction for alcohol synthesis for the F-T synthesis can be presented as Equation (10.14). nCO þ 2nH2 › Cn H2n þ 1 OH þ ðn1ÞH2 O

ð10:14Þ

Equation (10.14) suggests an optimum H2/CO ratio of 2.0 but the catalyst has signiﬁcant water–gas shift activity that generates some H2 from CO and H2O by the water–gas shift reaction (Eq. (10.5)). CO þ H2 O › CO2 þ H2

ðexothermicÞ

ð10:5Þ

This water–gas shift reaction shifts the optimal ratio near 1.0 and shifts more by-product production of CO2. The typical ratio of H2/CO used is between 1.0 and 1.2.

178

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

TABLE 10.13

Alcohol Distribution of Mixed Alcohol Product

Alcohol Methanol Ethanol Propanol Butanol Pentanol þ Acetates (C1 and C2) Water

Dow (wt.%) 30–70% 34.5% 7.7% 1.4% 1.5% 2.5% 2.4%

Source: Ref. (28).

As a ﬁnal comment, a lifetime for the catalyst is selected as 5 years in some technical process evaluations.25,27 A range of product distribution for alcohol mixtures is shown in Table 10.13 produced by F-T catalysis. As a ﬁnal comment, a lifetime for the catalyst was selected as 5 years in some technical process evaluations and simulations.25,28

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM SYNGAS VIA A BIO-CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE The current route for production of ethanol (CH 3CH2OH) is via fermentation of sugar and starch crops, such as the corn-to-ethanol fermentation process where the ethanol product is blended as a motor fuel. However, these crops used to produce ethanol generally have high food value and competition between motor fuels and food can eventually drive up the price of food unless other market forces prevail. The process approach discussed here is to start with syngas (CO and H2) that can be produced from a variety of sources (besides food sources) and produce ethanol from a biochemical synthesis route. The advantage of this process route is that the gasiﬁcation step to produce syngas can be performed using all kinds of biomass/organic feedstocks. Thus, a synthesis route to ethanol using syngas as a feedstock for a biochemical process route will be discussed as illustrated in Fig. 10.11. As shown in Fig. 10.11, the clean syngas is sent to a biochemical (fermentation) process for the production of ethanol. One such fermentation process is based upon the bacteria Clostridium ljungdahlii where the reactants are CO, H2, and CO2 in an aqueous phase. The bacteria culture is anaerobic and dies in the presence of air. Typical pressure ranges from 0.8 to 2 bar and temperature is 35–37 C (95–98.6 F). The fermentation follows the given reactions (Eqs. 10.15 and 10.16). 6CO þ 3H2 O › C2 H5 OH þ 4CO2

DG ¼ 48:7 kcal=mol

ð10:15Þ

6H2 þ 2CO2 › C2 H5 OH þ 3H2 O

DG ¼ þ 28:7 kcal=mol

ð10:16Þ

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM SYNGAS VIA A BIO-CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTE

179

Selected Synthesis Gas Option: Biochemical Fermentation

Syngas Cleanup

Ethanol/Water

Distillation

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS) Ethanol Product

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Other Wastes Biomass & Materials

Ethanol Fuel Blend Gasification Reactor

Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Slag or Vitrified Slag

FIGURE 10.11 Process for Production of Ethanol from Syngas via a Biochemical Synthesis Route.

Some production of acetic acid is possible from Equations (10.17 and 10.18). 4CO þ 2H2 O › CH3 COOH þ 2CO2

DG ¼ 39:2 kcal=mol

ð10:17Þ

4H2 þ 2CO2 › CH3 COOH þ 2H2 O

DG ¼ 25:8 kcal=mol

ð10:18Þ

where DG is the free energy. The free energy, DG, indicates whether a reaction goes spontaneously at constant temperature and pressure. A DG (negative) indicates a spontaneous reaction is most likely to occur whereas a (positive) DG indicates less likelihood. Thus, one can conclude by the free energy value (DG) from Equation (10.15) that the most likely preference is for CO as a reactant. A lesser preference is for H2 as indicated by Equation (10.16). The reactions described by Equations (10.17 and 10.18) indicate that some acetic acid production will likely occur. A 90% conversion into ethanol is reported for CO and 70% for H2. The production of ethanol over acetic acid/acetate ions depends on fermentation conditions. The effect of pH on the fermentation process is important and is typically controlled near pH 4.5. The inﬂuence of the CO/H2 ratio is not as important, as the bacteria have a preference for CO. Even though the bacteria prefer CO to H2, both CO and H2/CO2 mixtures can be simultaneously converted to ethanol. High concentrations of ethanol can be toxic to the bacteria, so the ethanol concentration in the fermenter is kept below 3%. It is reported that the fermentation reactions are very selective with relatively high yields, the products being only ethanol (C2H5OH), CO2, and water. However, acetic acid/acetate ions will also be produced as noted previously.29,30,31,4,32 The conversion of syngas to ethanol by this biochemical synthesis route has been proven in a pilot plant in Arkansas for several years on various feedstocks by

180

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI, Inc.). This pilot plant operation shows the practicality of combining the ﬂexibility of gasiﬁcation to produce syngas and then coupling it with a biochemical synthesis route, using fermentation/bacteria, to produce the ﬁnal ethanol product. Some of the carbon-based feedstocks to the pilot plant for gasiﬁcation and production of ethanol via the ﬁnal fermentation and distillation process are as follows: MSW, biosolids, corn stover and other agricultural residues, timber and wood waste forestry materials, used tires or plastics, coal, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons and other waste materials generated in the United States. For gasiﬁcation, a Consutech gasiﬁer was added to supply syngas to the fermentation reactor. This process technology is ready for commercialization. The Consutech gasiﬁer comprises two stages where the syngas temperature is elevated to 1,288–1,370 C (2,350–2,500 F) in the second stage for cracking of any heavy hydrocarbons so that CO and H2 are mainly produced. The thermal gasiﬁcation process occurs in an oxygen-starved atmosphere to produce the syngas. The syngas is cooled to 37 C (99 F) before being sent to the fermentation reactors. The bacteria in the fermenters/reactors are a modiﬁed culture of “C. ljungdahlii.” Nutrients are added to promote cell growth and regeneration of the biocatalyst.29,33 In the process of cooling the hot syngas from the gasiﬁer from about 2,500 F to about 97 F, large quantities of waste heat are recovered as high-temperature steam for the generation of electricity from steam turbines. The reactions for the biochemical anaerobic fermentation process are Equations (10.17 and 10.18): 4CO þ 2H2 O › CH3 COOH þ 2CO2

DG ¼ 39:2 kcal=mol

ð10:17Þ

4H2 þ 2CO2 › CH3 COOH þ 2H2 O

DG ¼ 25:8 kcal=mol

ð10:18Þ

It is stated that this process produces ethanol, water, and H2. Ethanol concentration in the process is kept to 3% or less, since higher concentration of ethanol inhibits bacteria metabolism. A slip stream of aqueous ethanol is continuously withdrawn from a membrane unit that retains cells for recycle. The aqueous slip stream of ethanol is sent to a conventional distillation system with molecular sieve unit for the production of ﬁnal ethanol product that can be pure industrial- or fuel-grade ethanol.29,34 The BRI process is shown in Fig. 10.12. Water and nutrients are recycled from the distillation system to the fermenter. Fermentation times of a few minutes have been achieved at ambient temperature and pressure. BRI states that the entire process, from the time the waste material is fed into the gasiﬁer to the creation of ethanol, takes less than 7 minutes. BRI reports that one of the great strengths of the process is the rapid biochemical conversion to ethanol.34 The BRI process is stated to utilize an enzyme from patented bacteria that consume synthesis gas from the gasiﬁer to discharge ethanol at a yield of 75 gallons/dry ton of biomass and can yield 150 gallons or more per ton from used tires or hydrocarbons. A module of the BRI process can operate at a capacity of 250–300 tons material per day. A module is composed of two gasiﬁers with a capacity of about 125 tons/day/each

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL VIA A COMBINATION OF CHEMICAL AND BIO-CHEMICAL

181

Synthesis Gas Option: Biochemical Process Route Nutrients

Syngas Cleanup & Heat Recovery

Exhaust gas

Fermenter Water recyle

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS)

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Other Wastes Biomass & Materials

Cell Filtration Gasification Reactor

Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Dilute Ethanol

Distillation

Molecular Sieve

Ethanol Product

Ash

FIGURE 10.12 BFD for Conversion of Syngas to Ethanol via Biochemical BRI Process.29,34

gasiﬁer of waste and two fermenters. Each module will process some 85,000 tons of biomass per year and produce 7.0 million gallons of ethanol while generating 5 MW of power. This module can gasify a carbon-based material with a moisture content of less than 40 wt.%. Feedstocks need not be shredded or sorted to remove metal and glass. It is reported that any mixture of plastics, ties, manure, paper or yard wastes, construction debris, furniture, hazardous wastes, crop residues, timer slash, etc. are reported to be converted into syngas and then to ethanol.34 BRI reports that a mid-sized BRI, Inc. plant could process 1,000,000 tons of MSW, waste tires and/or biosolids per year and produce 80 million gallons/year of ethanol while generating 50 MW of power where 35 MW is excess for sale to the grid.34 PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL VIA A COMBINATION OF CHEMICAL AND BIO-CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS ROUTES USING BIOMASS (CELLULOSIC MATERIAL) The combination of chemical and biochemical synthesis routes to ethanol does “not” involve the use of syngas but it is presented here to illustrate that this approach is different than the syngas to ethanol route. Much interest has been devoted to this approach so some understanding of the process is instructive for gathering proper perspective of various processes. Several process alternatives exist for hydrolysis of cellulose materials for producing a feedstock (sugars) that can be further used in fermentation for the ﬁnal production of ethanol. Lignocellulosic materials such as agricultural, hardwood, and softwood residues are potential sources of sugars. The cellulose and hemicellulose components of the lignocellulosic materials are essentially long molecular chains of sugars. These long chains of sugars are strongly held together by lignin. To make

182

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

these long chains of sugars available for fermentation to ethanol, it is required that the lignin be separated from the cellulose and hemicellulose components and by doing so produce fermentable sugars. Cellulose is a linear polymer of glucose monomers. Hemicellulose is a branched polymer of primarily xylose and glucose. Hydrolysis of hemicellulose is readily achieved under mild acid or alkaline conditions. Both cellulose and hemicellulose fractions are potential sources of fermentable sugars. Lignin cannot be fermented to sugars, and other nonfermentables such as fermentation residues can be used as fuel to provide steam and electricity for the process.35 Agricultural residues and hardwoods are similar in that both contain lower amounts of lignin content than softwood. The separation of the cellulose and hemicellulose components from lignin can be accomplished by a chemical reaction called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis literally means reaction with water. It is a chemical process in which a molecule is cleaved into two parts by the addition of a molecule of water. However, under normal conditions, only a few reactions between water and organic compounds occur. Generally, strong acids or bases must be added in order to achieve hydrolysis where water has no effect. The acid or base is considered a catalyst to promote the hydrolysis reaction to occur under conditions in which the reaction products are fermentable sugars. Since softwood contains more lignin than hardwoods or agricultural residues, the hydrolysis step is more difﬁcult. The hydrolysis step produces a number of sugars including pentose, which is particularly difﬁcult to ferment. In addition, many of the hydrolysis reactions are also promoted by catalysts, called enzymes, which promote many organic reactions selectively. Thus, some processes are more suited to convert these materials to fermentable sugars for ethanol production via fermentation. The suitability of a process depends on the lignocellulosic feedstock material. Therefore, some processes will be discussed that have some advantages for particular feedstocks.36 As stated, hydrolysis with an acid can be used to chemically convert lignocellulosic biomass to fermentable sugars. A dilute acid in two steps followed by a third enzymatic step is suitable for softwoods. Straw and hardwood will most likely require just one step of dilute acid hydrolysis. The basic three-step process as mentioned above is shown in Fig. 10.13.29 The feedstock for this process of chemical and biochemical route to ethanol can be selected from softwood, hardwood, wood residues from sawmills, cultivated crop residues (corn stover, straw, grasses, etc.), and biomass wastes from agro-industry, forestry, or other origins. Biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Cellulose and hemicellulose can be fermented to ethanol after pretreatment and hydrolysis. Ethanol is distilled to the ﬁnal ethanol product, which can be very close to 100% ethanol when distillation and molecular sieve adsorption are used. The remaining nonfermentable residue can be converted to heat and electricity by thermal methods for use in the production process.37,38 Another process for conversion of lignocellulosic materials to ethanol is by Iogen Company. This process includes a steam explosion pretreatment and enzymes pioneered by Iogen as illustrated in Fig. 10.14. These enzymes are proprietary and manufactured by Iogen. The pretreatment step involves steam explosion with dilute

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL VIA A COMBINATION OF CHEMICAL AND BIO-CHEMICAL

183

Option: Chemical & Biochemical Process Route to Ethanol

Biomass, Wood Feedstock

Milling

Ethanol Product

H2SO4

Water

H2SO4/Enzyme

Prehydrolysis

Washing

Hydrolysis

Distillation

Fermentation

Washing

CO2

Lignin fuel

Evaporation

Residue

FIGURE 10.13 Ethanol.29

Water

Effluent

Simpliﬁed Process Diagram of Chemical and Biochemical Route to

Option: Chemical & Biochemical Iogen Route to Ethanol Glucose

H2SO4

Biomass, Wood Feedstock

Ethanol Product

Pretreatment Steam Explosion

Distillation

Prehydrolysis

Cellulase (enzyme) Production

Hydrolysis

Fermentation

Sugar/lignin Seperation

Chemicals

Lignin Fuel

Burner/Boiler

Heat/ Electricity

FIGURE 10.14 Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Biomass to Ethanol via Chemical and Biochemical Iogen Route.29

184

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

acid at elevated temperature and pressure. The hydrolysis and fermentation steps are carried out at ambient temperature and pressure. Distillation is a conventional distillation step used in industry producing nearly 100% ethanol when distillation and molecular sieve adsorption are used. The process is suitable for agricultural residues such as wheat straw and corn stover. Hardwood residues can be used as a feedstock. A single pretreatment step is sufﬁcient to make agricultural and hardwood residues efﬁciently hydrolyzed by enzymes. For separation of the lignin of softwoods from the cellulosic material, higher levels of enzymes are necessary. Lignin is a by-product and also can be used as a fuel to produce steam and electricity. Iogen has investigated uses for lignin as value-added products and also to produce steam and electricity. The process produces large quantity of liquid waste with high BOD and COD, which must be treated before disposal. However, the technology is readily available and just presents another economical cost factor.36 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a process for conversion of lignocellulosics materials to ethanol as shown in Fig. 10.15. The cellulosic material goes through the following process steps: pre-treatment, hydrolysis, and fermentation. Several pretreatment technologies can be used such as steam explosion and use of dilute acid. Simultaneous sacchariﬁcation and co-fermentation (SSCF) are conducted in one vessel.29 Distillation is accomplished in two columns. The ﬁrst removes the dissolved CO2 and most of the water. The second column concentrates the ethanol to a near azeotropic composition. All the water from the near azeotropic mixture is removed by molecular sieve adsorption. Regeneration of the molecular adsorption column requires that an ethanol water mixture be recycled to distillation for recovery. The bottom of the ﬁrst column contains all the unconverted insoluble and dissolved solids. The insoluble Option: Chemical & Biochemical NREL Route to Ethanol

Biomass, Wood Feedstock

Pretreatment

Cellulase Production

Hydrolysis of Hemicellulose

Xylose, Cellulose, and Lignin

Second stage hydrolysis of cellulose

Xylose and glucose fermentation

Zymomomas mobilis

Ethanol Product

Distillation

Lignin and solids for burning or recovery

FIGURE 10.15 Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Biomass to Ethanol via Chemical and Biochemical NREL Route.29

PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL VIA A COMBINATION OF CHEMICAL AND BIO-CHEMICAL

185

Option: Chemical & Biochemical BC International Corporation Route to Ethanol Biomass, Wood Feedstock

Milling

First stage hydrolysis of hemicellulose

Second stage hydrolysis of cellulose

Glucose + Lignin

Xylose + Water

E. Coli

Ethanol Product

Glucose Fermentation

Xylose Fermentation

Distillation

Lignin and solids for burning or recovery

FIGURE 10.16 Process Block Flow Diagram for Conversion of Biomass to Ethanol via Chemical and Biochemical BCI Route.29

solids are separated by centrifugation and sent to the burner. The liquid from the centrifuge is concentrated using waste heat from distillation. The concentrated syrup is sent to the burner and the evaporated condensate is used as clean process water.39 BC International Corporation (BCI) developed a process for conversion of lignocellulosics materials to ethanol as illustrated in Fig. 10.16. The BCI technology was obtained from the University of Florida, which has an exclusive license for commercialization of this technology. BCI technology can release the sugar potential of cellulose and hemicellulose and produce ethanol by fermentation of both the glucose and nonglucose sugars in the cellulosic biomass. BCI’s key technology comes from the genetically engineered strains of Escherichia coli bacteria, i.e., labeled KO11. This bacterium has the ethanol production genes of Zymomonas spliced into it. This recombinant organism can now ferment both hexose and pentose sugars with high efﬁciencies. In addition, this organism has been modiﬁed to increase its tolerance for ethanol, maintain these traits, increase pH and temperature tolerances, and include its ability to ferment short chains of sugars. Thus, the process can handle agricultural feedstocks and hardwoods that produce many different sugars. These bacteria can ferment nearly all the sugars released from the cellulosic biomass(s) into ethanol with subsequent higher efﬁciency and commercial feasibility. As shown in Fig. 10.16, xylose from ﬁrst-stage hydrolysis is fermented separately to ethanol. Glucose from the second-stage hydrolysis stage is fermented to ethanol. These steps comprise two separate fermentation process; however, they use the same organism. The two-stage steps for dilute acid hydrolysis have been known for years and have been improved by BCI. The lignin and solids can be used in a thermal process to produce energy.29 The BCI process produces lignin, the quantity depending on the feedstock. Current plans are to use lignin as a fuel to generate process heat for the plant. It is clear that BCI’s advantage is the ability to ferment pentose and hexose sugars.

186

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Signiﬁcant amounts of waste are generated during the process. Besides lignin, there are extractables from the feedstock and cell biomass from the fermentation steps. Solids, besides lignin, need to be recovered from a treatment plant for energy values and the remainder need to be treated for BOD and COD prior to discharge.36 These technologies for the conversion of lignocellulosic materials to ethanol are presented here to inform/make the reader knowledgeable of such processes even though syngas is not involved in the production of ethanol. Professionals need to be aware of other important technologies for producing ethanol in order to develop a better understanding and possible future synergism of these technologies with the thermal technologies. Current fermentation routes use sugar and starch from mainly agricultural food crops. These crops, being used for food, bring by nature an outcry for their use for conversion into energy, i.e., ethanol. An example is the current fermentation process from corn to ethanol. The most prevalent forms of sugar in nature are those existing as cellulose and hemicellulose. Thus, much work has been devoted to replacing the sugar and starch from agricultural food crops with less expensive and more abundant lignocellulose-based feedstocks. These feedstocks can be agriculture waste, forest residue, etc. This assessment has propelled the development of technologies for conversion of lignocellulosic materials to ethanol via a combination of chemical and biochemical synthesis routes using feedstocks of biomass (cellulosic materials).37

OXOSYNTHESIS (HYDROFORMYLATION): SYNGAS AND OLEFINIC HYDROCARBONS AND CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS The oxosynthesis process is the hydroformylation of oleﬁns with synthesis gas (CO and H2). It serves as the route to C3–C15 aldehydes that are then used for conversion to alcohols, acids, and other derivatives. World production of oxoalcohols was nearly 8.1 million tons/year for the year 2002. The oxosynthesis process is also known as hydroformylation. Hydroformylation is an industrial synthesis route for many oleﬁns. The synthesis route is used to produce solvents, synthetic detergents, ﬂavorings, perfumes, highvalue healthcare products, and value-added commodity chemicals. Oxoaldehyde products range from C3 to C15. The upper range of C11–C14 is referred to as the detergent range, since these aldehydes are generally used as intermediates in the synthesis of alcohols with surfactancy appropriate for detergents. Reactants, catalyst, and products are all present in the same phase, typically as a liquid phase. Currently, hydroformylation processes comprise the fourth largest commercial use of syngas.10,4 The major part of oxosynthesis process involves the hydroformylation of propylene to butyraldehyde, which is then converted to 2-ethylhexanol, which is a plasticizer alcohol used in the manufacturing of ﬂexible PVC. Also, hydroformylation is a key step in the commercial production of vitamin A. The oxosynthesis process is the reaction of CO and H2 with an oleﬁnic hydrocarbon to form an isomeric mixture of normal aldehydes and iso-aldehydes. The reaction is exothermic and is thermodynamically favored at ambient pressure and low

OXOSYNTHESIS (HYDROFORMYLATION): SYNGAS AND OLEFINIC HYDROCARBONS

187

TABLE 10.14 Typical Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Oxosynthesis Gas Component H2/CO CO2 H2 CO

CO

Oxosyngas

— — <0.1 mol% >98.5 mol%

1 <0.5 mol% 49 mol% 49 mol%

Source: Ref. (10).

temperature. The reaction proceeds in the presence of homogeneous metal carbonyl catalysts. The “normal” or straight-chain isomer is the desired product according to Equation (10.19).4 RCH ¼ CH2 þ CO þ H2 › RCH2 CH2 CHO ðnormalÞ þ RðCH3 ÞCHCHO ðbranchedÞ ð10:19Þ Typically the H2/CO ratio of 1 : 1 in the syngas mixture is desired for oxosynthesis. The feed gas impurities can signiﬁcantly reduce the lifetimes of the catalyst. Catalyst poisoning can be from strong acids, HCN, organosulfur, H2S, COS, O2, and dienes. A typical feed composition and speciﬁcations of CO and oxosynthesis gas are shown in Table 10.14.10 The LP Oxo low-pressure oxo process was developed by Davy Processs Technology (DPT) and Union Carbide Corporation in 1971. This process is the world’s leading process for the production of oxoalcohols from oleﬁns. A simpliﬁed schematic of the oxoprocess is shown in Fig. 10.17.4 Synthesis Gas Option: LP Oxo Process Route Off gas

Compressor

Stirred-Tank Reactor

Demister Condenser Separator

CO/H2

Stripping Column

Purify H2

Reprocessing

Olefin Purify Rh complex and Ligand

FIGURE 10.17

Offline Catalyst Reprocessing

Product

Process Block Flow Diagram, Syngas and Oleﬁnic Hydrocarbon Oxosynthesis.4

188

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

The oxoaldehydes are intermediates for the production of alcohols, acids, and other chemical products. Some oxochemicals are n-butyraldehyde, n-butanol, 2-ethylhexanol, 2-ethylhexanol, 2-ethyl hexanoic acid, isobutyraldehyde, iosbutanol, n-propanol, propionic acid, and amyl alcohol. Process improvements will continue to be developed for this important and valuable oxysynthesis process for the hydroformylation of oleﬁns with synthesis gas (CO and H2) in the manufacturing of many valuable industrial intermediates and/or high-value consumer and industrial products.

SLAG OR VITRIFIED SLAG OR ASH FROM GASIFICATION REACTOR AND SPECIALTY BY-PRODUCT OPTIONS In the gasiﬁcation of feedstocks, the organic materials in the feedstock are gasiﬁed to syngas and exit from the top of the gasiﬁer. The inorganic/mineral materials of the feedstock are removed from the bottom of the gasiﬁer as slag, vitriﬁed slag, or ash and are by-products. The process conditions in the gasiﬁer under which these inorganic/ mineral materials (by-products) are formed inﬂuence the properties of these materials as to whether a slag, vitriﬁed slag, or ash is produced. In addition, these bottom gasiﬁer products can be processed to other by-products that may be of higher value. The objective of a process is to consider by-products as marketable products for reuse and sale in the marketplace. A common comment is to state the by-products are recyclable. Figure 10.18 illustrates simply where the slag, vitriﬁed slag, or ash originates from the gasiﬁcation process. The solid discharge from the bottom of the gasiﬁer can be viewed as either a solid waste or as a by-product from the gasiﬁcation

Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS)

Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Biomass, Coal, Coke & Other Raw Materials and/or Air/Oxygen (limited) Steam/Water(sufficient)

Gasification Reactor

Slag or Vitrified Slag or Ash

FIGURE 10.18

Synthesis Gas Cleanup & Options

Specialty By-products Options

Gasiﬁcation Reactor Slag or Vitriﬁed Slag or Ash or Specialty By-products.

SLAG OR VITRIFIED SLAG OR ASH FROM GASIFICATION REACTOR

189

process. A positive approach is to use technology in the bottom solids discharge from the gasiﬁer as by-products for productive use and sale in the marketplace. In this manner, the best environmental and most positive economic impact can be realized for companies, the country, and its citizens. By-product slag or vitriﬁed slag, i.e., rocklike by-product, will be discussed as to what use or value-added by-products can be made from this by-product (Specialty By-product Options), produced from the gasiﬁcation of MSW. Some details will be discussed on the utilization of the rocklike by-product such as but not limited to metals, rock wool, ﬂoor tiles, roof tiles, insulation, landscaping blocks, road aggregate, or road material.1 Before looking for potential and/or applications for the by-products from gasiﬁcation, properties of these by-products, slag, vitriﬁed slag, and ash, and conditions in which such materials are produced, will be discussed. For example, if the gasiﬁer is operated above the ash fusion temperature, it unequivocally shows that the solids discharged from the bottom of the gasiﬁer are highly nonleachable. This fact has been shown by leachability data on the vitriﬁed slag obtained from a Plasma Arc gasiﬁer as shown in Table 10.15. The data is obtained by conducting the TCLP upon the vitriﬁed slag. The TCLP is designed to simulate the leaching that a waste will undergo if disposed of in a sanitary landﬁll. The results are then compared with the standards set by constituents listed in 40 CFR x268.41 for land disposal restrictions. If the TCLP extract contains any one of the toxicity characteristic constituents in an amount equal to or exceeding the concentrations speciﬁed in 40 CFR x261.24, the waste possesses the characteristic of toxicity and is deemed a hazardous waste. Applicable TCLP standard limits are RCRA standards. For the data in Table 10.15, the Plasma Arc gasiﬁer conditions under which the “vitriﬁed slag” was produced by the gasiﬁcation of MSW would be around a temperature range of 1,208–1,530 C (2,206 F–2,876 F). Note, the toxicity concentrations as measured by the TCLP method on the vitriﬁed slag produced by Plasma Arc gasiﬁcation of MSW are all well below the RCRA permissible limits for the MSW sample analyzed.40 TABLE 10.15 TCLP Data on Vitriﬁed Slag from Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Constituent

RCRA Limit (Permissible) (mg/l)

TCLP Measured Concentration (mg/l)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver

5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0

<0.1 0.47 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Source: Ref. (40). Note: RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

190

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Another interesting study adds further credibility for having the proper gasiﬁcation conditions in the gasiﬁer for the production of a slag that is nonleachable. Partially toxic ashes and ﬂy ash from a typical coal-ﬁred power plant were mixed together and processed in a plasma torch reactor. At the high temperature of the plasma torch reactor, the mixture of toxic ashes and ﬂy ash was processed. The ﬁnal product (vitriﬁed material) obtained from the plasma torch processing is environmentally acceptable. The vitriﬁed product properties included hardness and leaching and both test results were acceptable. When toxic ash, ﬁlter deposits, and residues are heated to sufﬁcient temperatures, their elements (including minerals and toxic heavy metals) melt into a vitriﬁed material. High temperatures above 1,700 K (1,427 C or 2,600 F) are required for even partial vitriﬁcation and this temperature is not available in most incinerators. However, these high temperatures are easily reached by plasma arc furnaces (plasma torch reactor) or gasiﬁers. After vitriﬁcation, the mineral product is chemically stable and mechanically resistant. The product looks like a glassy basalt structured lava and is mechanically harder than basalt. The melting point of the mixture in the plasma arc reactor was between 1,550 and 1,600 C. The bottom ash from a medical incinerator and the ﬂy ash from a typical coal-ﬁred power plant were mixed to form a 50/50 mixture, which was fed to a Plasma Arc reactor. Results from the experimental work are shown in Table 10.16. The Vicker’s hardness varied between 480 and 520 depending on the mixture ratios of the bottom ash and ﬂy ash. The conclusion from the tests was that the vitriﬁed slag material is environmentally acceptable and can return to the environment as an aggregate in the construction industry.41 A study was conducted in Alaska on the use of Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation for the processing of MSW, construction and demolition debris, industrial waste, hazardous waste, and wood waste. Plasma torch systems were noted in the investigation to have signiﬁcant advantages. In this study, Plasma Arc Gasiﬁer of solid waste was presented as having environmental superiority with TCLP compositions as presented in Table 10.17 for a typical proﬁle of the slag/vitriﬁed glass from the gasiﬁer. It is stated that the extremely tight physical and chemical bonds within the slag result in consistently low leachate characteristics.42 TABLE 10.16 Reactor

Bottom Ash and Fly Ash Processed to Vitriﬁed Slag by Plasma Arc [Concentration in Aqueous Extract (mg/l)]

Metal Ion 2þ

Pb Cu2 þ Ni2 þ Zn2 þ Cr3 þ Mn2 þ Source: Ref. (41).

Bottom Ash (mg/l)

Fly Ash (mg/l)

Vitriﬁed Slag (mg/l)

0.80 0.63 0.84 0.52 0.05 0.42

0.50 0.55 0.28 0.66 2.26 0.78

<0.005 0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

SLAG OR VITRIFIED SLAG OR ASH FROM GASIFICATION REACTOR

191

TABLE 10.17 Typical Proﬁle for Slag/Vitriﬁed Glass, Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation of Solid Waste Constituent

RCRA Limit (Permissible) (mg/l)

TCLP Composition (mg/l)

Lead Cadmium Mercury Chromium Arsenic

5.0 1.0 0.2 5.0 5.0

<0.001 <0.001 <0.00005 <0.002 <0.001

Source: Ref. (42). Note: RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

Laboratory analysis of slag from the Wabash River gasiﬁer on coal gasiﬁcation (E-Gas gasiﬁcation process) determined the slag to be nonleachable, nonhazardous material with regard to inorganic materials. Since this slag is in the vitriﬁed state, it rarely fails the TCLP protocols for metals. The E-Gas coal gasiﬁer is a slurry-feed, pressurized, upﬂow, entrained slagging gasiﬁer with a two-stage operation. The gasiﬁer operates at temperatures around 2,400–2,600 F (1,315–1,427 C). Various feedstocks such as lignite, subbituminous coal, bituminous coal, and petroleum coke, have consistently produced a vitriﬁed slag when processed by the E-Gas gasiﬁcation process, which is deemed nonhazardous based upon TCLP test results. Consequently, this vitriﬁed slag can be suitable for metal recovery. Also, the hardness of the vitriﬁed slag makes it suitable as an abrasive. Other applications would be as a roadbed material and/or an aggregate in concrete formulations. Typical test results on the vitriﬁed slag are shown in Table 10.18.43

TABLE 10.18

Vitriﬁed Slag from E-GasTM Gasiﬁer, Test Results

Component

RCRA Limit (mg/l)

Leachate Concentration From TCLP Test (mg/l)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver

5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0

<0.06 0.32 <0.002 <0.005 <0.08 <0.0004 <0.08 <0.002

Source: Ref. (43). Note: RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

192

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

TABLE 10.19

Vitriﬁed Slag from Lurgi Slagging Gasiﬁer, Test Results

Component

RCRA Limit (mg/l)

Leachate Concentration from TCLP Test (mg/l)

Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver

5.0 100.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 1.0 5.0

0.00027 <0.2 0.000054 0.0016 <0.0003 0.00064 <0.005 <0.0003

Source: Ref. (44). Note: RCRA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TCLP, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.

Pittsburg #8 coal was processed on a Lurgi slagging gasiﬁer and the slag from the gasiﬁer had the leachate concentration from TCLP test shown in Table 10.19. The fused and solidiﬁed glassy particles are very inert to interaction with water.44 One would expect the slagging gasiﬁer operating temperatures of about 1,500–1,000 C (2,732–3,632 F).

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D), MARKETING, AND SALES Process for Resolving Problems with Ashes A process that has merit for resolving issues caused by other processes generating ashes is a process for plasma vitriﬁcation of incinerator ashes. A process was developed using thermal plasma as a solution for the treatment of ﬂy ash and grate ash generated by the incineration of MSW. This technology has been proven in Japan where several commercial facilities have been installed. Incinerator ash is typically a hazardous material because incineration concentrates many of the heavy metal pollutants in the ash such as lead, zinc, and cadmium. In addition, the ﬂy ash from the air pollution control devices can contain persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as dioxins and furans. The plasma process destroys the POPs and reduces the ash to a vitreous slag that also captures a signiﬁcant amount of heavy metal pollutants. The solid product is a vitreous slag that is highly resistant to leaching and can be used as a road building aggregate. The vitriﬁed product is mechanically strong and environmentally stable with low leachability characteristics. It is reported that Japan uses about 75% of the vitriﬁed product as a road construction material. In addition, a process has been developed to produce high-value glass ceramic tile products that have potential to be used as a quality building material such as granite and marble.45,46

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

193

Bag House Filter Burner Secondary Combustion Chamber

Cooling/ Scurbbing Chamber

Ash Slag Conveyor

Dust Hopper

Plasma Ash Melting Furnace Vitrified Slag

FIGURE 10.19

Slag Bin

Simpliﬁed Process Flow Diagram for Plasma Vitriﬁcation of Ashes.46

A simpliﬁed block ﬂow diagram for the plasma vitriﬁcation process is shown in Fig. 10.19. The Plasma Arc melting furnace is a cylindrical unit of welded construction and lined with high-quality refractory. Feed ash is fed to the plasma arc melting furnace and the temperature is maintained to melt the material at about 1,500 C (2,732 F). The ash is melted and the molten slag material continuously overﬂows to slag conveyor where it is water granulated or cast. The plasma arc reactor takes incinerator ashes and gasiﬁes (destroys) the organic constituents and fuses the inorganic constituents to a vitriﬁed slag. Information is available on the results obtained by processing MSW ash and sewage sludge waste (SSW) ash. Currently, over 100 million tonnes of MSW and 4 million tonnes of SSW are burnt (incinerated) annually worldwide. The ashes produced from the burning (incineration, mass burn) are low bulk density and contain leachable toxic heavy metals and persistent organics. Much of these ashes are landﬁlled. An experimental study was undertaken to take the grate material and ﬂy ash from an incinerator and process these materials in the plasma arc reactor. The reactor was conﬁgured to use either hollow graphite electrodes or plasma torches. The composition of feedstocks is shown in Table 10.20.45 All of the slags (vitriﬁed slags) were produced in the plasma arc reactor at a temperature range of 1,350–1,600 C (2,462–2,912 F). Composition of the vitriﬁed slags produced from the feedstocks is shown in Table 10.21.45

194

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

TABLE 10.20 Typical Composition of Grate Ash and Fly Ash from Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Constituent (Bulk Oxides) SiO2 (%) TiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) Fe2O3 (%) MnO (%) MgO (%) CaO (%) Na2O (%) K2O (%) P2O5 (%) LOI (%) Total carbon (%) Total sulfur (%) Metals Pb (mg/kg) Cu (mg/kg) Cd (mg/kg) Ni (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) As (mg/kg) Mn (mg/kg) Zn (mg/kg)

MSW Grate Ash 47.34 0.93 9.38 11.70 0.12 2.04 13.00 4.94 1.61 1.08 4.27 3.42 0.57 2451 5613 19.4 163 <0.5 41 928 4029

MSW Fly Ash 25.81 1.83 13.43 3.17 0.14 2.25 21.76 3.04 3.08 1.50 12.45 2.30 2.62 2945 675 175 60 <0.5 80 914 7129

Source: Ref. (45).

TABLE 10.21

Composition of Vitriﬁed Slags Produced by Plasma Arc Reactor

Constituent

MSW Grate Ash (wt.%)

MSW Fly Ash (wt.%)

SSW Grate (wt.%)

48.72 1.01 13.85 10.50 0.14 2.15 13.13 4.71 1.47 0.80 2.95 0.24 0.16 0.01 0.14

38.17 2.69 18.65 3.47 0.18 3.18 29.00 1.67 0.77 1.62 0.25 0.13 0.18 0.02 0.00

48.77 0.94 16.36 11.46 0.16 2.42 8.63 0.94 1.71 8.34 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.02

SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 C Cu Zn Ni Pb Source: Ref. (45).

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

195

TABLE 10.22 TCLP Leachate Tests from Untreated MSW ﬂy ash, Vitriﬁed Slag from MSW Grate Ash, MSW ﬂy Ash, and SSE Grate Ash

Metal

TCLP Limit

Untreated MSW ﬂy Ash (mg/l)

Vitriﬁed Slag MSW Grate Ash (mg/l)

Vitriﬁed Slag MSW ﬂy Ash (mg/l)

Vitriﬁed Slag SSW Grate Ash (mg/l)

Cd Cr As Pb Cu

1 5 5 5 NLS

0.1–1.3 0.8 0.15 1.18–11.17 0.11

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 1.09–2.0 0.18–0.83

<0.05 <0.05–0.13 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05–0.26

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.37–0.56

Source: Ref. (45). Note: NLS, no limit set.

Leachate, TCLP, tests were conducted on the vitriﬁed slags produced from the feed materials, MSW grate ash, MSW ﬂy ash, and SSW grate ash, created from an incineration operation. The vitriﬁed slags were produced from the plasma arc reactor and the tests are shown in Table 10.22. Note, the TCLP tests shown are on untreated MSW ﬂy ash, vitriﬁed slag from MSW grate ash, vitriﬁed MSW ﬂy ash, and vitriﬁed SSW grate ash.45 All leachate tests on the vitriﬁed slags by TCLP method are well below the legislation limits/requirements (TCLP limit) as shown in Table 10.22. Note, the glaring difference in leachate test results comparing the untreated MSW ﬂy ash and the vitriﬁed slag of the MSW ﬂy ash. The vitriﬁed slag of MSW ﬂy ash was processed in the plasma arc reactor. From a commercial standpoint, the economics of the plasma arc vitriﬁcation process can be substantially improved if the vitriﬁed slag can be used as decorative building tiles or an insulating foam. Simple cooling with air or water of the molten vitriﬁed slag allows the product to be used as a low-cost road building aggregate. By contrast, if the slag product is modiﬁed in the process so as to produce a highquality crystallized glass, then the properties of a crystallized glass can be compared with common high-grade construction materials as shown in Table 10.23.45 Further process development needs to be done in using a vitriﬁed slag from plasma arc processes for specialty high-value products for the marketplace.

TABLE 10.23 Slag

Physical Properties of a Potential High-Value Product: Recrystallized

Property Bend strength (kg/cm2) Bulk density (g/cm3) Mobs hardness Acid resistance (%) Thermal expansion coefﬁcient (MK1) Source: Ref. (45).

Recrystallized Slag

Marble

Granite

500 3 6–7 0.1 6.7

100 2.7 3 10.3 8

150 2.7 5–6 1 8.3

196

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

Production of Road Material from Slag and Vitriﬁed Slag The following discussion will be developed for an understanding of the blast furnace slag process for producing granulated slag product currently used for a road material. Understanding of the granulated slag produced from blast furnace slag will possibly lead to insights on how one can potentially produce some form of granulated slag product from slag/vitriﬁed slag originating from gasiﬁcation plants. In the United Kingdom (UK), the granulated slag-product is produced using the slag from blast furnace operation, i.e., production of molten iron in a blast furnace converting iron oxide feed materials at high temperatures. During the smelting operation, a slag is formed from the nonferrous components (gangue) of the iron oxide feed and the ash from the carbon-based fuels. One of the ingredients for feeding the blast furnace is metallurgical coke. In one zone of the blast furnace, the reduced iron-bearing materials start to melt. The iron starts to separate from the nonferrous components whereby these components drip through the metallurgical coke. Further, the nonferrous liquid absorbs metalloids from the percolating iron droplets. The iron settles through the slag layer and both liquids accumulate in the hearth. Both liquids are removed from the hearth by periodically running out a taphole and separated. The slag is either run into large pits near the furnace for air cooling into aggregate product or forced quenching system such as a slag pelletizer or slag granulator.47 A slag granulation process is shown in Fig. 10.20. The molten slag from the blast furnace is at a temperature range 1,300–1,500 C. The high water jet pressure and the thermal shock fragment the slag into granulated particles. The rapid cooling hinders the formation of crystals and a glassy material is produced. The granulated slag and water form a slurry and enter a dewatering drum. Dewatered granulated slag is discharged from the drum and onto a conveyor and into a stockpile. Final moisture content of the granulated slag-product will be below 8%. The stockpiled material (granulated slag-product) can be transferred to a cement mill for the production of

Granulation Plant Blast Furnace

Stack Iron 1300 - 1500 °C

Hot-water 80 - 90 °C Dewatering drum

Cooling fan

Conveyor Pit quenching

Active pit

Granulated slag - product Sump

Overflow Sump

Cold water 40 - 50 °C

FIGURE 10.20 Slag.47

Process Flow Diagram for Production of Granulated Slag from Blast Furnace

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

TABLE 10.24 Slag Constituent SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO

197

Composition of Granulated % Mass (Dry Material) 27–39 8–20 38–50 <10

Source: Ref. (47).

slag cement or used in the production of slag bound mixtures (SBM) for road construction.47 The granulated slag (vitriﬁed slag) has the appearance of sand but instead is glassy and ﬁbrous. Any reactive properties of the granulated slag depend on such factors as temperature of slag before granulation, chemical composition, conditions during granulation such as ﬂow rates and temperatures, and ﬁnes content. A typical composition of the granulated slag is shown in Table 10.24. The authors state that granulated slag has been used as a hydraulic binder for road construction in European countries. Mixtures of granulated slag and limestone have been investigated. Also, SBM has been developed as a construction material. According to the authors, it is estimated that 65% of the French roads have a pavement layer of SBM.47 The process for producing granulated slag from blast furnace operations is interesting because there are similarities between the granulated slag produced and vitriﬁed slag produced from gasiﬁcation processes. In addition, vitriﬁed slag composition from gasiﬁcation processes, in several respects, is much like that of granulated slag composition from blast furnace plants. Further studies into the similarities and differences of these different slag process conditions and compositions would likely reveal and produce some scientiﬁc breakthroughs. Production and Uses of Rock Wool, Stone Wool, and Mineral Wool Rockwool is an inorganic mineral product that was ﬁrst discovered in the islands of Hawaii. In 1840, American physicists exploring Hawaii discovered stonewool formed naturally during a volcanic eruption. Rockwool formations were created naturally as by-products of volcanic activity. Today, rockwool is typically made from rock or a combination of rock, limestone, and coke. The components of rockwool are melted at temperatures above 2,500 F. The molten solution is poured onto a spinning cylinder. As the molten solution ﬂies off the cylinder due to centrifugal forces, it elongates and cools to form ﬁbers. The resultant ﬁbers (rockwool) are then pressed into sheets, cubes, blocks, or granulated. Granulated rockwool can be used in soil mixtures. Rockwool is inert, sterile, porous, and nondegradable.

198

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

FIGURE 10.21

Horticultural Rockwool Used For Hydroponic Growing.48

Horticultural rockwool has been used for hydroponic growing in Europe for years and is used to produce many greenhouse-grown vegetables. Rockwool’s ﬁbrous structure contains a high percentage of air space, which is about 20% even when wet. Since rockwool cannot bind nutrients and water, all nutrients and water in the rockwool are available to the plant. Since rockwool is inert, the irrigation water is used to control the pH. Pictures of horticultural rockwool used for hydroponic growing are shown in Fig. 10.21.48 In a hydroponic system, a substrate growing system is where the root zone is physically supported by media. Plants are fed by applying nutrients in an aqueous solution to the media. A substrate is considered as anything that supports the root structure except soil. The reason for using rockwool in a hydroponic growing system is to provide a nutrient solution in the root zone and maintaining proper volume of air (oxygen) in contact with the roots. The key is that rockwool as a substrate offers the safety of providing a reservoir of nutrients, water, and air that responds to changes in the feed made by the grower. With rockwool as a substrate, a plant can remove solution from a saturated rockwool as easily as it does from rockwool that has lost 50% or 70% of its moisture. Thus, plants grown in rockwool are not exposed to water stress until the rockwool is almost dry. Rockwool holds more water per unit volume than other inorganic substrates and thus has a greater buffering capacity. With the larger reserves of nutrient solution and excellent drainage capacity, rockwool tends to be the better substrate.48 In 1865, industrial rockwool was ﬁrst created but only in crude form. Much development work came later in the 1970s in Europe. A simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram of stone wool manufacturing process is shown in Fig. 10.22. Stone wool is produced by melting igneous rocks and sometimes mixed with blast furnace slag in a cupola furnace at temperature near 1,500 C. Coke is added to supply the source of heat energy. A continuous ﬂow of molten lava is removed from the cupola furnace and enters some steel wheels rotating at a high speed. The spinning wheels at high speed spray the molten material into the air of the spinning chamber. In this manner, the material cools and solidiﬁes into wool-like strands of ﬁber. Simultaneously, a small amount of oil and resin binder is sprayed on the wool-like strands so as to bind the

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

199

Chimney Filter

Raw Material Silos Cupola furnace

Environmental burner

Cooling zone

Special machinery

Spinning chamber Raw Material Supply

Weighing Conveyor

FIGURE 10.22

Binder + Oil

Spinner

Curing oven

Design Packing cutting machinery

Direct loading

Process Flow Diagram for Production of Stone Wool.49

strands together. The wool-like material is collected on a conveyor belt and passes through a heated Curing oven where the texture of the wool-like material is compressed to density speciﬁcations and thickness for curing of the resin. At the end, the woolly material is cut and packaged. Some material is diverted to special machinery to produce specialty wool products such as pipe sections and when aluminum foil or wire netting is attached. A pipe section is made in special machinery by wrapping stone wool around a mandrel and is cured on the mandrel and then withdrawn.49 For raw materials, stone wool is made using basalt, diabase, other igneous rocks, and blast furnace slag. As mentioned earlier, coke is used to fuel the furnace and dolomite is used as a ﬂuxing agent. The cupola furnace is ﬁred by coke and oxygen to reach a temperature near 1,500 C. In the curing oven, the stone wool is compressed for density control, which provides texture qualities such as rigidity and strength. Heat in the curing oven sets the resin binder by bonding the ﬁbers together where strands touch one another. At the end, stone wool is cut to size and thickness for packaging. A slipstream from the curing oven is sent to special machinery for manufacture of custom stone wool products.49 Stone wool is made using raw materials of slag and basalt, melting, and ﬁberizing where droplets of vitreous furnace melt are spun into ﬁbers by falling into rapidly rotating ﬂywheels and injection of binders onto the ﬁbers, producing a gray stone. The gray stone with binders is cured in a curing oven at about 200 C where the material becomes gray-brown. Final stone wool product is cut into sizes and packaged. Glass wool is made with raw materials of sand, limestone, and soda ash, melting (1,300–1,500 C) and ﬁberizing where droplets of vitreous melt is drawn through tiny holes in rapidly rotating spinners forming ﬁbers and injection of binders onto the ﬁbers, producing a “white glass.” The “white glass” with binders is cured in a curing

200

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

oven at about 200 C where the material becomes yellow. Final glass wool product is cut into sizes and packaged. It should be also noted that mineral wool is often deﬁned as any ﬁbrous glassy substance made from minerals, typically natural rock materials such as basalt or diabase or mineral products such as slag and glass. Melting of the mineral feed is stated to be between 1,300 and 1650 C. Mineral wool is made from feedstock of natural rock and slags such as iron blast furnace slag as a primary material and copper, lead, and phosphate slags. Mineral wool in its various product forms is used as insulation and other ﬁbrous building materials used for structural strength and ﬁre resistance. Various forms can be put into the structural spaces of buildings: batts covered with vapor barrier of paper or foil to ﬁt between structural members of buildings, industrial and commercial products such as ﬁber felts, and blankets that are used for insulating boilers, ovens, pipes, refrigerators, and process equipment. The bulk ﬁber can also be used in the manufacture of ceiling tiles, wallboards, spray-on insulations, cement, and mortar.50,51 Mineral wool (rock and slag wool) insulation has physical and chemical properties that account for its utility. The ﬁbers are noncombustible and have melting temperature in excess of 1,800–2,000 F, and are used to prevent the spread of ﬁre. As a primary constituent of ceiling tile and sprayed ﬁreprooﬁng, rock and slag wool products supply ﬁre protection as well as sound control and attenuation.52 Further studies into the similarities and differences of these different mineral woollike products manufactured using feedstocks from current raw materials and slag sources, compared with slags from gasiﬁcation plants, would likely lead to some scientiﬁc breakthroughs and creation of new technologies for the manufacture of new wool-like products for the marketplace. Production of Aggregate Road material/stones derived from a slag, using a high-temperature melting process (vitriﬁcation process, 1,450 C) pass TCLP analysis and have been used as aggregates in asphalt and concrete. When the stones were used as a substitute for asphalt aggregate in constructing a public road in Kamagaya City, Japan, no difference was observed between the road construction area using these stones as substitute for coarse and ﬁne aggregates compared with that using natural aggregates. When these stones were used as concrete aggregates, the results were better than using natural aggregates. Concrete aggregate strength tests are shown in Table 10.25 when substituting 100% of the stones for coarse aggregates.53 More Research and Development (R&D) efforts will undoubtedly expand this technology to improved product properties and extended use as road materials when using various mixtures of slags from various gasiﬁcation processes with this technology. Production of Flame-Resistant Foam Graphite-impregnated foams (GIF) can be considered “inherently ﬂame-resistant foam.” An “inherently ﬂame-resistant foam” is considered self-extinguishing and

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

TABLE 10.25

201

Concrete Aggregate Strength Test Result of Concrete Aggregate Strength Test

Base concrete 100% substitute for coarse aggregates

Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Flexural Strength (N/mm2)

Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

34.8 39.3

4.85 5.09

2.68 2.98

Source: Ref. (53).

highly resistant to combustion. This new technology is a niche market such as for aircraft seating. GIF technology produces foam that can meet airline safety standards for seats so as to reduce dependency on ﬂame-retarded fabric. The question that arises then is “Can vitriﬁed slag be processed in such manner as to produce a product similar to GIF?” Any R&D into this complex technology will be able to address the issue and determine an outcome.54 Destruction of Asbestos Wastes via Vitriﬁcation Asbestos is a natural mineral that is ﬁbrous and crystallized. Asbestos was valued as a construction material with good insulating properties and resistance to ﬁre. However, upon inhalation, it may cause serious health problems such as asbestosis or pulmonary ﬁbrosis, bronchio-pulmonary cancer, and pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma. The danger of asbestos lies with its “physical properties” and not with its chemical properties. The asbestos ﬁbers settle in the lungs and remain for years after inhalation. Asbestos is a carcinogenic ﬁber and is classiﬁed as a hazardous waste. Much concern has been with the past use of asbestos as a construction material and then with the removal and disposal of asbestos material from buildings constructed years ago or being renovated or demolished. Procedures for removal of asbestos from buildings have been established. However once removed, the ﬁnal disposal or resting place of such asbestos waste presents a long-term liability if one connects a future problem with the original source (origin) of the asbestos waste. Still, the landﬁll approach remains as a low-cost and effective means for ﬁnal disposal. However, it would seem prudent and a better alternative for a ﬁnal solution to asbestos disposal by eliminating the problem with the “liability” associated with the disposal of the asbestos waste. With this consideration and many other concerns, development of a process for the destruction of asbestos waste was undertaken. One such process for testing the ability to destroy asbestos waste was plasma torch technology. This process technology was considered because a high temperature is generated (greater than 1,600 C) that can fuse the asbestos ﬁbers together through vitriﬁcation, promoting the destruction of the asbestos ﬁbers. In addition, not only the asbestos waste volume is destroyed via vitriﬁcation but the waste volume is reduced by 80% and the ﬁnal vitriﬁed product from the plasma torch vitriﬁcation process is inert and stable for recycling into road construction and maintenance.55,56,57

202

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

FIGURE 10.23

INERTAM—Asbestos Waste Treatment Process.55,56,57

The process for the destruction of asbestos waste via plasma torch vitriﬁcation was ﬁrst developed by EADS, a French aerospace company. Later, Europlasma was founded to develop this plasma torch technology for industrial processes such as waste treatment. A treatment facility in Morcenx, France was built and run by Inertam, a subsidiary of Europlasma, SA. Current capacity of the INERTAM facility for treating asbestos waste is about 110 tonnes/day. A simpliﬁed ﬂow diagram of the INTERTAM facility process is shown in Fig. 10.23.55–57 Asbestos waste arrives at the INERTAM treatment facility presorted. The waste is then crushed to proper size as feedstock to the plasma torch furnace. Waste is continuously fed to the plasma torch furnace, and output from the furnace is periodically removed every hour. After exiting the furnace, the vitriﬁed product is stored for cooling. Europlasma labels the vitriﬁed product as Cofalit. The Cofalit has been tested and shown to be nonhazardous and is sold for use as an aggregate for road construction or other construction products. The destructive transformation of the asbestos ﬁbers is total and a mean mass balance for 1 tonne of asbestos wastes reduces to about 85% vitriﬁed product, which is reduced in volume by approximately 80%. Discussion of Potential Markets for the Vitriﬁed Slag Beneﬁts of using vitriﬁed slag as a by-product for sale in the marketplace would be a much better solution than the current practice of landﬁlling. Many potential applications for the use of slag/vitriﬁed slag and by-products produced from slag/ vitriﬁed slag are listed in this discussion to facilitate the creation of new ideas by the reader. Production of lightweight aggregates (LWA) from slag, used to make roof tile, lightweight block, and structural concrete, looks appealing as an excellent opportunity to develop a market. The economic incentive for developing this technology depends on the market prices of target applications for conventional LWAs made from

VITRIFIED SLAG, SLAG, AND ASHES

203

expansible clays and sold for $40/ton and ultra-lightweight aggregates, ULWAs, made from expanded perlite and sold for $150/ton. Results have indicated that SLA is an excellent substitute for conventional LWA in roof tile, block, and structural concrete production. Slag-based near-ultra-lightweight material may also be used as a partial substitute for expanded perlite in agricultural and horticultural applications.43,58 Potential ideas and applications for slag and vitriﬁed slag, as remembered from the literature, are listed below to generate interest in the creation of novel ideas and synergism of ideas for new by-products and processes for the marketplace: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Construction structural backﬁll Asphalt paving aggregate—hot mix and seal coat aggregate Portland cement aggregate Asphalt shingle rooﬁng granules Pipe bedding material Blasting grit Snow and ice control Mineral ﬁller Road drainage media Water ﬁltering medium Water-jet cutting—a new application for boiler slag Slag lightweight aggregate (SLA) and ULWA Decorative tiles Insulation material for steel beams Abrasive material Road sub-base material Insulation materials for construction industry Aggregate in cement – concrete and asphalt Rooﬁng singles

The list of applications and ideas hopefully will help all to recognize that beneﬁts of using vitriﬁed slag as a by-product for sale in the marketplace would be a much better solution than the current practice of landﬁlling. Barriers to vitriﬁed slag utilization can be institutional, regulatory, and legal. Institutional barriers typically are restrictions on use through requirements, standards, speciﬁcations, policies, procedures, or just attitudes of organizations and agencies involved in use or disposal. These can also include economic, marketing, environmental, public perception, and technical barriers. Some examples are local material transport requirements, opposition from established raw material marketers, unknown long-term effects on products made from vitriﬁed slag, and product durability concerns. Regulatory barriers to using slag/vitriﬁed slag include federal, state and local legislation, and permitting requirements. Most states currently do not have speciﬁc

204

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

regulations for dealing with new technologies and innovations in the marketplace, so matters are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Legal barriers include contract, patent, liability, and some regulatory issues. It is crucial to overcome barriers to vitriﬁed slag use by demonstrating that the uses are technically safe, environmentally sound, socially beneﬁcial, and commercially competitive. Improved speciﬁcations, fact sheets, and testing procedures need to be developed in collaboration with government and university researchers and standardsetting organizations of high professional standards and conduct.43

REFERENCES 1. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 2. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. 3. Young, G.C., “From Waste Solids to Fuel,” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. 4. Spath, P.L. and Dayton, D.C., “Preliminary screening—Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for BiomassDerived Syngas,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), December 2003. 5. Khalid, W., “Update Catalyst Technology for Syngas Production,” Hydrocarbon Processing, April 2009. 6. DOE/NETL-2007/1260, Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility, Final Report for Subtask 41817.401.01.08.001, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), April 9, 2007. 7. Methanol Institute, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 740, Arlington, VA 22203, www. methanol.org, April 2009. 8. Fitzpatrick, T., “LCM—The Low Cost Methanol Technology,” Synetix, April 2009. 9. Methanex, www.methanex.com, Methanol, April 2009. 10. Higman, C. and van der Burgt, M., Gasiﬁcation, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 2008. 11. Higman, C., “Methanol Production by Gasiﬁcation of Heavy Residues,” IChemE Conference, London, 22–23 November, 1995. 12. DOE/EI/10653—T1, “Coal Based Synthetic Fuel Technology Assessment Guides,” Prepared for Energy Information Administration by Energy Resources Co., Inc., September 1981. 13. Indiana Coal to SNG, 2008, http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/pdf/CCTR-12-06-06Jclark.pdf. 14. NETL, 2007. Industrial Size Gasiﬁcation of Syngas, Substitute Natural Gas and Power Production. Report No. DOE/NETL-401/040607, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ coalpower/gasiﬁcation/pubs/systems_analyses.html. 15. Steinberg, M., 2005. Conversion of coal to substitute natural gas (SNG), http://www.hceco. com/HCEI105001.pdf. 16. Chandel, M. and Williams, E., “Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG): Technology, Environmental Implications and Economics,” Duke University, January 2009. 17. Muller, W.D., “Gas Reduction,” Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 5th edition, vol. A12, Weinheim, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, 1989.

REFERENCES

205

18. Gray, D. and Tomlinson, G., “Hydrogen From Coal,” MTR 2002-31, Mitretek Technical Paper, July 2002. 19. Li, F. and Fan, L.-S., “Chemical Looping Gasiﬁcation,” Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Ohio State University, October 2008. 20. ABS Energy Research, “The Hydrogen Economy,” Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, Edition 1, 2006, www.absenergyresearch.com. 21. Schlinger, W.G., “Commercialization of the Texaco Coal Gasiﬁcation Process,” Conversion Engineering Conference, 1979. 22. Falsetti, J.S. and Skarbek, R.L., “Petroleum Coke Utilization With The Texaco Gasiﬁcation Process,” 1993 NPRA Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, March 21––23, 1993. 23. NETL/DOE, “Hydrogen Production Facilities Plant Performance and Cost Comparisons,” Final Report, Compilation of Letter Reports from June 1999 to July 2001, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc. March 2002. 24. Syntec Biofuel Research, Inc., Private Communication, Vancouver, Canada, August 2007. 25. Phillips, S., Aden, A., Jechura, J., Eggeman, T., and Dayton, D., “Thermochemical Ethanol via Indirect Gasiﬁcation and Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical Report NREL/TP-510-41168, April, 2007. 26. Herman, R.G., “Chapter 7—Classical and Non-classical Routes for Alcohol Synthesis,” New Trends in CO Activation, L. Guczi,ed., Elsevier, New York, pp. 265–349, 1991. 27. Forzatti, P., Tronconi, E., and Pasquon, I., “Higher Alcohol Synthesis,” Catalysis Reviews—Science and Engineering, vol. 33 (1–2), pp. 109–168, 1991. 28. Quarderer, G.J., “Mixed Alcohols from Synthesis Gas,” Proceedings from the 78th Spring National AIChE Meeting, April 6–10, New Orleans, LA, 1986. 29. Vessia, O., Finden, P., and Skreiberg, O., “Biofuels from lignocellulosic material, In the Norwegian context 2010, Technology, Potential and Costs,” Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), December 20, 2005. 30. Skene, L., “Waste to Energy, The Creation of a BC Bioreﬁnery & Sustainable Energy Cluster, Concept Overview & Project Development Strategy,” Presented by New Energy Eco-Systems, Inc., August 8, 2006. 31. Younesi, H. et al., “Ethanol and acetate production from synthesis gas via fermentation process using anaerobic bacterium, Clostridium ljungdahlii,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 27, pp. 110–119, 2005. 32. Eucar, E.R. et al., “Well to wheels analysis of future automotives fuels and power trains in the European context, well to tank report,” EUCAR, CONCAWE and Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission, Appendix 1, 2003. 33. Schuetzle, D., Tamblyn, G., Tornatore, F., and MacDonald, T., “Assessment of Conversion Technologies for Bioalcohol Fuel Production,” TSS Consultants and California Energy Commission, July 2006. 34. Bruce, W.F., “The Co-Production of Ethanol and Electricity from Carbon-based Wastes,” A Report from Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI, Inc.), Regarding a New Technology that Addresses Multiple Energy and Waste Disposal Solutions, March 2006. 35. Zessen, E. v., et al., “Ligno Cellulosic-Ethanol, A Second Opinion,” Report 2GAVE-03.11, NOVEM, Netherlands Agency for Energy and Environment, May 2003. 36. Environment Canada, “Wood-Ethanol Report, Technology Review,” 1999.

206

MSW PROCESSES TO ENERGY

37. van Kasteren, J.M.N., Dizdarevic, D., van der Waall, W.R., Guo, J., and Verberne, R., “Bio-ethanol from bio-syngas,” Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Telos, Document 0456372-R02, December 5, 2005. 38. Etanolteknik AB (ETEK), webpage at 222.etek.se. 39. Wooley, R., Ruth, M., Sheehan, J., Ibsen, K., Majdeski, H., and Galvez, A., “Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing CoCurrent Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis Current and Futuristic Scenarios,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), NREL/TP-580-26157, July 1999. 40. Circeo, L.J., Nemeth, J.C., Newsom, R.A., “Evaluation of Plasma Arc Technology for the Treatment of Municipal Solid Wastes in Georgia,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, January 1997. 41. Cedzynska, K., Kolacinski, Z., Izydorczyk, M. and Sroczynski, W., “Plasma Vitriﬁcation of Waste Incinerator Ashes,” Technical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland, 1999. 42. “Technical Feasibility Study For Developing A Waste Reduction And Energy Recovery Facility In Southeast Alaska,” Prepared by: DMC Technologies, Rexburg, Idaho, Prepared for: Silver Bay Logging, Inc., City of Wrangell, Alaska, June 15, 2003. 43. Rataﬁa-Brown, J., Manfredo, L., Hoffmann, J., and Ramezan, M., “Major Environmental Aspects of Gasiﬁcation-Based Power Generation Technologies, Final Report,” U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), December 2002. 44. Heunisch, G.W. and Leaman, G.J., Jr., “Phase I: The Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant. Analysis of Coal, B6-Products and Wastewaters from the Technical Support Program,” DOE, FE-2542-23, August 1979. 45. Iddles, D.M., Chapman, C.D., Forde, A.J., and Heanley, C.P., “The Plasma Treatment of Incinerator Ashes,” Tetronics, Ltd. , circa 2000. 46. Tetronics, Ltd., “Plasma Vitriﬁcation of Incinerator Ashes,” 2005, www.tetronics.com. 47. Richardson, J.T.G, and Haynes, D.J., “Slag bound Materials in Composite Roads,” SCI Lecture Papers Series, Society of Chemical Industry, UK, www.soci.org, 2000. 48. Dowgert, M.F., “Rockwool as a Substrate for Hydroponic Growing Systems,” www. alternativegarden.com. 49. Rockwool International A/S, Environmental Report 2002. 50. Source Category Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/3-80-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC March 1980. 51. “The Facts On Rocks And Slag Wool,” Pub. No. N 020, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, Alexandria, VA. 52. North American Insulation Manufacturing Association (NAIMA), “FAQs About Mineral Wool (Rock and Slag Wool) Insulation,” www.naima.org, 2006. 53. Nishida, K. et al., “Melting and Stone Production Using MSW Incinerated Ash,” Tsukishima Kikai Co. , Ltd., Tokyo, Japan 1999. 54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership: Environmental Proﬁles of Chemical Flame-Retardant Alternatives for Low-Density Polyurethane Foam,” Vol. 1, EPA 742-R-05-002A, September 2005, www.wpa.gov/dfe. 55. Blary, F. and Rollin, M., “Vitriﬁcation of Asbestos Waste,” INERTAM, circa 1995. 56. Waste Management World, “The Flexibility of Plasma,” December 2007.

REFERENCES

207

57. Europlasma, SA, “Asbestos melting unit,” INERTAM, www.europlasma.com, 05/22/2009. 58. Douglas, F. and Chugh, Y.P., “Feasibility of Utilizing Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle (IGCC) Byproducts For Novel Materials Development,” National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), DOE Cooperative Agreement: DE-AF26-04NT40752, August 2006.

CHAPTER 11

MSW Gasiﬁers and Process Equipment

As recognized by any in-depth discussion, gasiﬁcation is an old technology used for the production of energy from solid materials. In general, gasiﬁcation has been used for the conversion of carbonaceous materials into a gaseous product for the production of energy products and by-products in an oxygen-starved environment. The carbonaceous material, whether from municipal solid waste (MSW) or other sources, is processed in an oxygen-deﬁcient environment with heat to produce a syngas comprised mostly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). Chemical bonds of the carbonaceous materials (complex chemical compounds) break down with heat to produce the more simple and thermodynamically stable gaseous molecules of CO and H2. The inorganic or “mineral” materials are converted to a solid rocklike material called slag or vitriﬁed slag or ash.1–3 This chapter covers the various gasiﬁers and process equipment for the gasiﬁcation of MSW to syngas and by-products. In addition, it includes a discussion of process equipment used in the gasiﬁcation of coal because much of the gasiﬁcation equipment used today was based upon its development over the years for use with coal gasiﬁcation but has applications to MSW and other wastes as well. Thus, the discussion in this chapter will be on gasiﬁers and process equipment for the production of syngas (CO and H2), and consequent downstream production of energy and/or chemicals, fuels, and materials through chemistry and associated by-products. A typical process for the gasiﬁcation of MSW to syngas, energy, products, and byproducts is illustrated in Fig. 11.1. As mentioned, the organic components of MSWare converted into syngas, primary product, and the mineral components are converted into slag or vitriﬁed slag or ash, a by-product. For some gasiﬁcation processes, some (limited) amount of oxygen is supplied to the gasiﬁcation reactor to provide heat in the form of combustion heat necessary for the oxygen-deﬁcient reactions to produce syngas, which are endothermic reactions. Sufﬁcient steam/water is supplied to the gasiﬁcation reactor to promote some syngas reactions.

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

208

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

Process Equipment (4) SYNGAS Cleanup

209

Process Equipment (6)

CLEAN SYNGAS

Synthesis Gas Options

Process Equipment (3) Synthesis Gas (SYNGAS) Process Equipment (1) Feedstock Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and/or Biomass, Coal, Coke & Other Raw Materials and/or Air/Oxygen (limited) Steam/Water(sufficient)

Process Equipment (2) Gasification Reactor Power Generation: + Electrical Energy + Steam

Slag or Vitrified Slag or Ash

Process Equipment (5)

Specialty By-products Options

Process Equipment (7)

Process Equipment (8)

FIGURE 11.1 Process Equipment for the Gasiﬁcation of MSW to Syngas, Energy, Products, and By-products.

Basic chemical reactions in the gasiﬁcation process for producing syngas are: C þ O2 ! CO2

ðexothermicÞ

C þ H2 O > CO þ H2

ðendothermicÞ

ð11:1Þ ð11:2Þ

C þ 2H2 > CH4

ðexothermicÞ

ð11:3Þ

C þ CO2 > 2CO

ðendothermicÞ

ð11:4Þ

CO þ H2 O > CO2 þ H2

ðexothermicÞ

Cn Hm þ nH2 O > nCO þ ðn þ 12mÞH2

ðendothermicÞ

ð11:5Þ ð11:6Þ

where for the steam methane (CH4) reforming reaction,, where n ¼ 1 and m ¼ 4, Equation (11.6) becomes, CH4 þ H2 O > CO þ 3H2 ðendothermicÞ

ð11:7Þ

Note, an exothermic reaction produces heat (output) whereas an endothermic reaction requires heat (input). Also note, Equation (11.1) is a combustion reaction that is sometimes used in the gasiﬁcation process to provide some internal (in-situ) process heat for the endothermic syngas reactions but only a (limited) amount of oxygen is supplied so the gasiﬁcation reactor environment remains conducive for the production of syngas. The remaining process heat is supplied externally to the gasiﬁcation reactor such as through the heat transfer surfaces of the reactor heating system.

210

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

This chapter covers the basic process equipment used for the gasiﬁcation of MSW to syngas, energy, products, and by-products. Since the gasiﬁcation of coal technology was one of the ﬁrst technologies developed for syngas production, this technology has much application to the gasiﬁcation of MSW. Thus, process equipment gasiﬁcation used for coal gasiﬁcation will be discussed as applicable to the gasiﬁcation of MSW. CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS The predominant combustible products of gasiﬁcation are CO and H2 and a small amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and CH4. Typically, the heat produced by a small amount of oxygen fed to the gasiﬁcation reactor provides most of the heat via combustion to break down the chemical bonds in the hydrocarbon feedstock to be gasiﬁed. The heat provided by the limited oxidation reaction therefore raises the gasiﬁer temperature along with other exothermic gasiﬁcation reactions so as to drive the main endothermic gasiﬁcation reactions. Although there are many gasiﬁcation reactors with various mechanical designs and operating conditions, gasiﬁcation reactors can be classiﬁed as three basic types: . . .

Moving-bed gasiﬁer/gasiﬁcation reactors (also called ﬁxed-bed gasiﬁcation reactors) Fluidized-bed gasiﬁer/gasiﬁcation reactors Entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer/gasiﬁcation reactors.

These gasiﬁcation reactors will be discussed followed by a description of commercial gasiﬁcation reactor/systems.4,5 The three basic types of gasiﬁers/gasiﬁcation reactors are shown in Fig. 11.2.6

FIGURE 11.2

Type of Gasiﬁers.6

CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS

211

The moving-bed or ﬁxed-bed gasiﬁer is a typical Lurgi dry ash gasiﬁer that is installed at Sasol coal to liquids (CTL) plants and the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. Providers of technology are BGL and Lurgi. Gasiﬁer operates on any coal rank and outlet gas temperature of 800–1,200 F with the syngas exiting near the top of the gasiﬁer. Ash handling is slagging and nonslagging. Fixed-bed or moving-bed gasiﬁcation technology accounts for nearly 42% of the world’s total installed gasiﬁcation capacity. As discussed with coal as the carbonaceous feed, coal particles move slowly down the bed while reacting with the gases moving up through the bed. Feed enters the top of the reactor/gasiﬁer; steam and oxygen or air enter the bottom while ash or slag is removed from the bottom. From top to bottom, zones can be envisioned as two types of chemical reactions taking place. At the top of the reactor/ gasiﬁer, the heated coal is heated and dried while cooling the syngas as it begins to exit the reactor. As it moves down the bed, the coal is further heated and devolatized as it proceeds down the bed called the carbonization zone. Next, a gasiﬁcation zone is reached where the devolatized coal reacts with steam and CO2. Near the bottom of the reactor, the zone is called the combustion zone, which is the hottest zone in the reactor where oxygen reacts with the remaining material. Where the temperature at the bottom of the reactor is moderate and below the ash-slagging temperature, the area is called a dry-ash gasiﬁer. For example, it could be called a Lurgi dry ash gasiﬁer. Where less steam is injected at the base of the reactor/gasiﬁer, the combustion zone is hotter and above the ash-slagging temperature. Thus, this type of operation is referred to as a slagging gasiﬁcation like that of British Gas/Lurgi or BGL gasiﬁer. Movingbed or ﬁxed-bed gasiﬁers have these characteristics: there are low oxygen requirements, caking coals require design considerations, tars and oils are produced, and there is a limited ability to handle ﬁnes.4 Currently, ﬂuidized-bed gasiﬁers account for about 2% of the installed capacity and appear to have potential for low-ranked coals. Technology is provided by HTW, KRW, KBR, and Winkler. The outlet gas temperature is 1,700–1,900 F and exits the top of the gasiﬁer. Ash handling is nonslagging and exits the bottom of the gasiﬁer. As discussed with coal as the carbonaceous feed, coal particles enter the side of the reactor while steam and oxygen or air enter the bottom and ash is removed from the bottom. The steam and oxygen or air entering the bottom suspend or ﬂuidize the feed particles entering near the top of the reactor. Temperature is maintained below the ash-fusion temperature, thus avoiding clinker formation and possible deﬂuidization of the bed. Fluidized-bed gasiﬁers have the following characteristics: they accept a wide range of solid feedstock; the temperature of the bed is uniform and moderate; there are moderate oxygen and steam requirements; and there is extensive char recycling.4 The entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁers are licensed by ConocoPhillips, Future Energy, GE Energy, and Shell, which are the current market leaders. This gasiﬁcation technology represents about 56% of the installed capacity. The entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁers are popular because of the following reasons: reliable and proven design (widely used in the chemical industry), no internal moving parts, compact size, minimal byproducts, and ability to supply syngas at higher pressures. The outlet gas temperature is 2,250–3,000 F and exits near the bottom of the gasiﬁer. Ash is always slagging and is removed from the bottom of the reactor.4–6 Feed, steam, and oxygen or air enter

212

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

the top of the gasiﬁer. Entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁers operate at high temperatures well above the ash-slagging conditions and consequently have high carbon conversion. Entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁers have the following characteristics: ability to gasify all coals regardless of coal rank, caking characteristics or quantity of coal ﬁnes, uniform temperature, short residence time in the reactor, the need for feed to be ﬁnely divided and homogenous, large oxygen requirement, high-temperature slagging operation, and possible entrainment of molten slag in the raw syngas.4 Commercial entrained ﬂow gasiﬁers include the ChevronTexaco gasiﬁer, Shell gasiﬁer variant, Prenﬂo gasiﬁer, the E-Gas (Destec) gasiﬁer, and the Noell gasiﬁer.4 ChevronTexaco Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer The ChevronTexaco gasiﬁcation technology utilizes a single-stage, downward-feed, entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer as shown in Fig. 11.3.4 A Coal water slurry (60–70% solids) enters the top of the gasiﬁer with 95% oxygen as feed to the pressurized gasiﬁer. The feed enters through a special injector at the top of the refractory lined gasiﬁer. The fuel and oxygen react exothermally to produce a hot temperature from 2,200 F to 2,700 F and a pressure of >20 atmospheres. The gasiﬁcation operation produces a raw syngas and molten ash (slag). The syngas passes downward where it is cooled by a radiant syngas cooler and high-pressure steam is produced. The syngas then passes over a

FIGURE 11.3

ChevronTexaco Gasiﬁer.4

CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS

213

pool of water at the base of the cooler and exits the gasiﬁer. The slag drops into the pool of water and is removed through a lock hopper. Metals and other ash constituents become bound into a glassy slag. Other modiﬁcations and conﬁgurations of this gasiﬁcation process are made for speciﬁc process designs required for a particular feedstock. The ChevronTexaco technology has been around for more than 40 years and with various feedstocks. E-Gas Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer The design of the E-Gas gasiﬁer was originally Destec’s LGTI gasiﬁer, Destec’s Louisiana Gasiﬁcation Technology, Inc., which was similar in size and operations. The E-Gas gasiﬁer, as shown in Fig. 11.4, consists of two stages, a slagging ﬁrst stage followed by an entrained-ﬂow nonslagging second stage. The ﬁrst stage comprises a horizontal refractory lined vessel whereby the carbonaceous fuel is partially combusted with oxygen to a temperature around 2,600 F and pressure of 400 psig. Preheated slurry and oxygen are fed into the ﬁrst stage via two opposed mixing nozzles of proprietary design. The oxygen rate is controlled to maintain the temperature above the ash fusion point so as to form a slag. The highly exothermic reactions rapidly increase the temperature to about 2,400–2,600 F. In the second stage, nearly all the feed is converted to syngas consisting of CO, H2, CO2, and water

FIGURE 11.4

E-Gas Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer, ConocoPhillips.7

214

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

(H2O). The ash from the coal and any added ﬂux forms a molten slag that ﬂows out from the bottom of the horizontal section into a quench water bath. The solidiﬁed slag exits from the bottom of the quench section. Ray syngas from the ﬁrst stage ﬂows upward into the vertical refractory lined second stage where additional slurry is injected. The feed material to the second stage is about 25% of the total coal slurry, which undergoes gasiﬁcation/devolatilization and pyrolysis endothermic reactions. Any unreacted char is carried over with the syngas and leaves the gasiﬁer at 1,900 F. Char formed is a function of the reactivity of the carbonaceous feed and any char generated is removed from the syngas in downstream processing and recycled back to the gasiﬁer.4,7 The E-Gas technology has been fully demonstrated at the Wabash River IGCC plant, which began operation in 1995. The Wabash River plant has gasiﬁed over two million tons of bituminous coal with 5.9% sulfur and petroleum coke with 7% sulfur during the several years of operation.4,7 Shell Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer The Shell gasiﬁcation process is a dry-feed pressurized entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer as shown in Fig. 11.5, which can operate on a wide variety of feedstocks. Feed is conditioned by pulverizing and drying much the same as for a conventional pulverized coal boiler operation. The coal is pressurized in lock hoppers and fed into the gasiﬁer by dense phase conveying. Oxygen (95% purity) is mixed with steam prior to feeding to the fuel injector. The coal reacts with oxygen and the exothermic reaction produces Quench Gas

Gasifier HP steam Quench SyngasCooler Coal/ Carbonaceous Feed Pretreatment

Syngas to gas treating

MP steam Steam

Coal Feed

Oxygen

dry Fly Ash removal

Oxygen Steam Fly Ash system Slag removal Slag

Fly Ash recyle to Coal pretreatment

FIGURE 11.5 Shell Entrained-Flow Gasiﬁer Process.4

water wash

CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS

215

a temperature between 2,700 F and 2,900 F and pressures between 350 and 650 psig. The typical syngas is principally H2 and CO with a small amount of CO2. The hightemperature gasiﬁcation process converts the ash into molten slag, which moves downward in the refractory lined gasiﬁer into a water bath where it solidiﬁes and is removed by a lock hopper. The raw syngas exits the gasiﬁer at around 2,500 F– 3,000 F. Further cooling of the syngas occurs in the syngas cooler along with waste heat recovery where steam is created.4,8 Lurgi Dry-Ash Gasiﬁer and British Gas/Lurgi Gasiﬁer The Lurgi dry-ash gasiﬁer, as shown in Fig. 11.6, is a pressurized, dry-ash, movingbed gasiﬁer. A major characteristic is the use of a moving bed that uses steam and oxygen for gasiﬁcation of lump coal rather than pulverized coal. It produces tars. The Lurgi dry-ash Gasiﬁer uses a high steam to oxygen ratio, which maintains the temperature in the dry-ash system so the ash does not melt. Lower temperatures means the gasiﬁer is better on reactive coals such as lignites than on bituminous coals.8 The sized coal moves downward through a coal lock and then through a rotating coal distributor, insuring uniform ﬂow downward through the gasiﬁer. Steam and oxygen are injected at the bottom of the gasiﬁer, which move upwards through the bed and

FIGURE 11.6

Lurgi Dry-Ash Gasiﬁer.4

216

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

react with the coal producing a hot syngas. The hot syngas moves upwards and the coal moving downwards is dried, devolatized, and gasiﬁed. Syngas temperatures near the top are about 500–1,000 F. The temperature near the bottom is about 1,832 F. The raw syngas exits the gasiﬁer at about 570–932 F and is quenched using recycled water to condense tar/oil. A water jacket cools the gasiﬁer and produces steam for process use. Steam is injected at the base of the gasiﬁer to keep the temperature from exceeding the melting temperature of the ash. Ash is removed by a rotating gate and removed by a lock hopper.4,8 The British Gas/Lurgi gasiﬁer is shown in Fig. 11.7. The British Gas/Lurgi gasiﬁer is a dry-feed, pressurized, moving bed, slagging gasiﬁer. The British Gas/Lurgi gasiﬁer operates at a lower steam to oxygen ratio than the Lurgi dry-ash gasiﬁer and consequently at a higher temperature. The operation at higher temperature results in ash melting and formation of slag.

FIGURE 11.7

British Gas/Lurgi Gasiﬁer.4,8

CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS

217

The reactor is water cooled and refractory lined. Oxygen and steam are introduced near the bottom sidewall through lances where oxidation and slag formation occur. The feed enters the top of the gasiﬁer and typically is a mixture of coarse coal, ﬁnes, briquettes, and ﬂux. Coal moves downward and is dried and devolatilized. The coal descends and is converted into char and gasiﬁed into syngas. Slag is formed in the lower section and is quenched and removed by the lock hoppers. Syngas exits the gasiﬁer at about 1,050 F near the top and passes into a quench vessel to about 300 F. The British Gas/Lurgi gasiﬁer was developed in the 1970s for the production of syngas with high CH4 content for the manufacture of synthetic natural gas (SNG) from Coal. It was also developed and tested later for integrated gasiﬁcation combined cycle (IGCC) power plants. The British Gas/Lurgi gasiﬁers have been used with feed from coal, sewage sludge, and refuse derived fuel (RDF).4,8,9 Prenﬂo Entrained Bed Gasiﬁer The Prenﬂo gasiﬁcation process was developed by Uhde of Germany, formerly Krupp Uhde. The Prenﬂo gasiﬁer is a pressurized, dry-feed, entrained-ﬂow, slagging gasiﬁer as shown in Fig. 11.8. Coal is ground to about 100 mm and pneumatically conveyed by

Evaporator surfaces Steam Steam

Syngas

Coal + flux

Steam + Oxygen

Steam + Oxygen

Gasifier Slag

FIGURE 11.8

Prenﬂo Gasiﬁer.4

218

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

nitrogen (N2) to the gasiﬁer. The internal surface of the gasiﬁer structure is refractory lined. The coal is fed through injectors at the lower part of the gasiﬁer with steam and oxygen. Syngas is produced at a temperature of up to 2,900 F. The syngas exiting is quenched with recycled clean syngas to lower the temperature to around 1,470 F. The syngas then ﬂows upwards in a central distributor pipe and downward through the evaporator stages to reduce the syngas before exiting the gasiﬁer to 716 F. Slag that is formed ﬂows down the gasiﬁer and is quenched with a water bath and granulated prior to being removed by a lock hopper system.4 Noell Entrained Flow Gasiﬁer The Noell gasiﬁcation process was designed originally for the gasiﬁcation of pulverized brown coal. The Noell gasiﬁer is a pressurized, dry feed, entrained-ﬂow, slagging gasiﬁer. The oxygen to fuel ratio is adjusted to maintain the desired temperature in the gasiﬁer so the inorganic matter melts and ﬂows vertically downward with the gasiﬁcation gas and leaves the gasiﬁer through a special discharge unit. The gasiﬁcation chamber is specially designed with a gas-tight membrane wall and is refractory lined. The liquid slag is handled by a specially designed system and removed from the bottom of the gasiﬁer. Carbon conversion rates >99% have been achieved in the gasiﬁer. A simpliﬁed diagram of the Noell entrained ﬂow gasiﬁer is shown in Fig. 11.9.4,10 High-Temperature Winkler Gasiﬁer The high-temperature Winkler (HTW) gasiﬁer was developed by Rheinbraun and is a dry-feed, pressurized, ﬂuidized-bed, dry-ash gasiﬁer. The HTW technology can gasify a variety of feedstocks including all grades of reactive low-rank coals with higher ash softening temperature, i.e., brown coal, black coal, both caking and noncaking coals. Also, the HTW can gasify many forms of Biomass. Due to the high outlet temperatures, the syngas does not contain any higher hydrocarbons such as tars, phenols, and other heavy substituted aromatics.8,4 Fuel is ﬁne-grained coal and is pressurized in a lock hopper and then a charge bin before being fed with a screw-type feeder into the gasiﬁer. The bottom section of the gasiﬁer is a ﬂuidized bed wherey the ﬂuidized medium is air or oxygen and steam. The ﬂuidized bed is formed by particles of ash, semi-coke, and coal and is maintained in the ﬂuidized state by upward ﬂow of gases. Gas and solid particles ﬂow up the reactor with further steam and air/oxygen being added to complete the gasiﬁcation reactions. Fine ash particulates and char are entrained with the crude syngas and removed by a cyclone and cooled. The solids removed by the cyclone are returned to the gasiﬁer. Ash is removed from the base of the gasiﬁer via an ash screw. The base of the gasiﬁer is kept at about 1,470 F–1,650 F. The temperature is controlled to keep it from exceeding the ash softening point. The temperature above the freeboard of the bed can be signiﬁcantly higher than 1,650 F–2,000 F. An operating pressure can be 145 psi for syngas manufacture and 360–435 psi for an IGCC. The HTW gasiﬁer has been commercialized at 145 psi pressure for the gasiﬁcation of lignite to syngas and conversion to methanol.

CONVENTIONAL GASIFIERS/GASIFICATION REACTORS

219

Burner insert

Cooling jacket

Refractory lining

SC layer Coolant

Partial quench system

FIGURE 11.9

Gas outlet

Noell Entrained Flow Gasiﬁer.4,10

In Finland, the HTW gasiﬁer is used to gasify peat for ammonia synthesis. A schematic of the HTW ﬂuidized bed gasiﬁer is shown in Fig. 11.10.4,8

KRW Fluidized Bed Gasiﬁer The KRW gasiﬁcation process was developed by M.W. Kellogg Company, and is a pressurized, dry-feed, ﬂuidized-bed, slagging process. The gasiﬁer is illustrated in Fig. 11.11. The KRW IGCC technology is capable of gasifying many types of carbonaceous materials such as coals whether high-sulfur, high-ash, low-rank, or high-swelling. In addition, the KRW gasiﬁer technology can gasify biowastes and refuse-derived wastes. Coal and limestone are crushed to about 1/4 in. material as a feedstock and transferred to the KRW ﬂuidized-bed gasiﬁer with a lock hopper system. Gasiﬁcation

220

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.10

High-Temperature Winkler Gasiﬁer.4,8

is the result of steam and air or oxygen reacting with the coal at high temperatures. The feedstock material and steam and air or oxygen are injected and mixed together at the bottom of the gasiﬁer. The only solid waste mentioned was a mixture of ash and calcium sulfate.4 When the coal enters the gasiﬁer, it releases its volatile matter and oxidizes rapidly to supply the heat necessary for the endothermic gasiﬁcation reactions. Rising gases upward through the bed with the internal recirculation of particulates in the ﬂuid bed effectively transfers heat throughout the bed. With the rapid mixing of coal constituents and steam in a hot mixed ﬂuidized bed, gasiﬁcation of carbonaceous materials occurs and they are converted to syngas. The limestone material is calcined to CaO and then reacts with H2S formed from the gasiﬁcation of the coal leading to the formation of CaS. As the char from the gasiﬁcation of coal, particles become enriched in ash and begin to melt from the hot syngas. Melted particles recirculate into the ﬂuid bed and agglomerate with other ash particles. Particles that escape with the syngas from the gasiﬁer are separated from the syngas in a high-efﬁciency cyclone and recycled to the gasiﬁer. After continued agglomeration, the particles begin to settle and gravitate to the bottom of the gasiﬁer. In the end, the CaS forms CaSO4 in the ﬂuidbed sulfator.4

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 11.11

221

KRW Fluidized Bed Gasiﬁer.4

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY Plasma gasiﬁcation has been used to treat waste products and incinerator ash into a nonhazardous glassy slag. Although application of plasma gasiﬁcation to the management of MSW is relatively recent, the potential of plasma gasiﬁcation to convert MSW to energy and commercial products is high. Earlier work has typically centered upon the use of Plasma Gasiﬁcation technology for melting incinerator ash to a nonhazardous glassy vitriﬁed slag and the destruction of hazardous or medical wastes at temperatures above 7,000 F. Only recently has the plasma technology been coupled with gasiﬁcation technologies for the management of MSW. Plasma technology was developed in the 1960s from the space program for development and testing/simulation of the intense kinetic heating that missiles and spacecrafts encountered during re-entry. A high-temperature gas was needed to test heat shield materials and classical gas combustion was not able to generate a sufﬁciently high temperature. Plasma arc technology was advanced signiﬁcantly as a result of this need for space applications.

222

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

Plasma is called the fourth state of matter, which is distinctly different from the three others: solid, liquid, and gaseous states. Plasma can create an ionized gas by electrical forces whereby the temperatures can reach between 2,000 C and 5,000 C (3632 F–9,032 F). Plasma is a hot ionized gas created by an electrical discharge. A hot ionized gas is created by plasma technology using an electrical discharge from an AC or DC source to heat the gas. The gas is typically air, oxygen, N2, H2, argon, or a combination of these gases. The hot ionized gas is created by a plasma torch. A plasma torch is one of two types, either a transferred torch or a nontransferred torch. The “transferred torch” creates an electric arc between the tip of the torch and a metal or slag at the bottom of the reactor or conductive lining of the reactor wall of the plasma arc gasiﬁer. In a “nontransferred torch,” the arc is located inside the torch itself where the plasma gas is created by passing the gas through the torch, is heated by the arc, and then exits the tip of the torch whereby the hot plasma gas is injected into the reactor. There are merits to both designs but only the Plasma Arc gasiﬁers will be discussed here.11 Alter Nrg Plasma Gasiﬁer (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation) System The Westinghouse Plasma Corporation (WPC) is a proprietary and proven plasma gasiﬁer design, i.e., Plasma Gasiﬁcation Vitriﬁcation Reactor (PGVR). The Plasma Gasiﬁcation reactor is a moving-bed gasiﬁer with WPC’s proven industrial plasma torch technology. The feedstock enters the gasiﬁer where it comes into contact with hot plasma gas. Several torches can be arranged circumferentially in the lower section of the gasiﬁer to provide a more uniform heat ﬂux as shown in Fig. 11.12. The amount of air or oxygen used in the torch is controlled to promote the endothermic gasiﬁcation reactions of the organic material. The inorganic constituents are converted to a molten slag, which when typically quench-cooled forms a glassy nonhazardous slag. As shown, the hot plasma gas ﬂows into the gasiﬁer/reactor to gasify MSW and melt the inorganic materials.11,12 Alter Nrg Corporation uses a proprietary plasma-based gasiﬁcation technology developed by a wholly owned subsidiary (WPC) for converting various feedstocks such as coal, petroleum coke, MSW, industrial waste, biomass, or biosolids into commercial syngas. The WPC technology is based upon a plasma cupola design where a cupola is a vertical shaft furnace that has been used in the foundry industry for remelting of scrap iron and steel. WPC cupola has been used for the production of cast iron at a General Motors plant in Deﬁance, Ohio since 1989. WPC offers four models of plasma torch systems, each designed to operate over a wide range of power inputs. These torches are self-stabilized and nontransferred arc torches that can operate on many gases such as air, oxygen, N2, etc. A wide variety of torches are available with power input from 80 kW to 2,400 kW. For example, four models of plasma torch systems are available for each torch: Marc 3a from 80 to 300 kW, Marc 3HC from 5 to 150 kW, Marc 11L from 300 to 800 kW, and Marc 11H from 700 to 2,400 kW. An illustration of a Westinghouse Plasma torch is shown in Fig. 11.13.13 These torches have been in operation for many years. Consider that Hitachi Metals in Japan has used WPC to process MSW since 1999. WPC has

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 11.12

223

Alter Nrg Plasma Gasiﬁer (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation).12

conducted over 100 pilot tests on a wide range of feedstocks at their Westinghouse Plasma Centre in Madison County, Pennsylvania.12 Another illustration of the WPC gasiﬁer (Alter Nrg Plasma gasiﬁer) is shown in Fig. 11.14. The gasiﬁcation technology is a two-stage gasiﬁcation/combustion process that permits efﬁcient gas-to-gas heat transfer for a limited combustion, to supply some internal heat for the endothermic gasiﬁcation reactions. The slag produced is a vitriﬁed glassy material that is highly stable and resistant to leaching. Metals can be recovered and recycled to the metal industry. Difﬁcult wastes such as tires, carpet, and sludge can be accepted as feedstock.14 Hitachi Metals, Ltd. of Japan commissioned a plant in year 2002 for gasiﬁcation of MSW and waste water sludge for district heating. A schematic of a plasma arc gasiﬁer of Hitachi Metals, Ltd. is shown in Fig. 11.15.15 EUROPLASMA, Plasma Arc System EUROPLASMA specializes in high-temperature industrial processes using plasma technology. EUROPLASMA uses a nontransferred arc plasma torch technology. The arc remains in the torch so only the plasma ﬂow goes out of the torch. A plasma torch is composed of two metallic tubular electrodes, one upstream and one downstream. A gas stream passes between these electrodes, and an electrical arc ﬂows between the negative and positive electrodes, which heats and ionizes the gas. The result is a high-

224

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.13

Westinghouse Plasma Torch.13

FIGURE 11.14 Westinghouse Plasma Torch Gasiﬁer.14

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 11.15

225

Westinghouse Plasma Assisted Gasiﬁer, Hitachi Metals.15

temperature gas ﬂow coming out from the downstream electrode as a plasma jet. One advantage of a plasma torch is the ﬂexibility to operate, i.e., from 25% to 100% of power range. EUROPLASMA plasma torches are available in power ranges from 100 kW to 4 MW. A model A0025 has a power range from 5 to 25 kW, model C0500 from 100 to 500 kW, model C0700 from 200 to 700 kW, model D2000 from 500 to 2,000 kW, and model D4000 from 1,000 to 4,000 kW. Range of power and applications can be expressed as: 25–100 kW for gas treatment, biomass gasiﬁcation; 100–300 kW for waste or biomass gasiﬁcation, gas cleaning; 300–800 kW for ash melting, waste or biomass gasiﬁcation and 800 kW–4 MW as ash melting, cupola air blast heating.16 The CHO-power process uses a high-temperature plasma torch to transform waste into a high-quality syngas by gasiﬁcation. The syngas is then supplied to a gas turbine/ engine that produces electricity. The end-to-end electrical yield is possible to reach 35–40%. In preparation of the waste to form fuel (feedstock) for the CHO-process, the waste has metal and inert materials removed if necessary. Then the feedstock is coarsely crushed before conveying into the gasiﬁcation plant. In the gasiﬁer, the feed is ﬁrst dried at about 200 C and then the organic components are converted to crude syngas at 600–800 C. The process is conducted in an atmosphere with absence of air. The gasiﬁcation unit is designed based upon a robust grate furnace process design that has been proven commercially for about 50 years. The Europlasma, CHO-power plant

226

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.16

EUROPLASMA, CHO-Power Plant, Main Components.17

is schematically shown in Fig. 11.16. The crude syngas is reﬁned using a plasma torch process to ensure complete dissociation of tar into syngas. Heat recovery and decontamination of the crude syngas are also done by a proprietary process. The inorganic or mineral part of the feedstock is transformed into ash, which is processed further using plasma torch technology to melt at 1,400 C. Upon cooling, the plasma torch–processed ash forms an inert vitriﬁed material. The ash treatment method is the Europlasma vitriﬁcation process. Europlasma has six plants currently equipped with this vitriﬁcation process.17 Phoenix Solutions Plasma Arc Torches, Phoenix Solutions Company (PSC) Phoenix Solutions Company (PSC) manufactures and designs high-temperature heating equipment, which include large plasma heating systems. PSC technology is used by its customers in the gasiﬁcation of low-level nuclear waste or reduction of incinerator ash, or. Phoenix Solutions Plasma Arc Torches are available in three arc modes and ﬁve power ranges. PSC will help clients determine which arc mode (transferred, nontransferred, or convertible) and power range best ﬁt the end-user’s operating environment and processes. PSC’s “transferred arc plasma torch” with one internal electrode transfers the arc of the plasma jet to the melt, resulting in localized and high heat. Transferred-arc torches can operate on a variety of gases such as argon, N2, helium, H2, air, CH4, propane, or oxygen. Transferred-arc torches operate between 50 and 3,000 kW. PSC’s “non-transferred arc torch” houses both front and rear internal electrodes, creating a jet of plasma from the end of the torch allowing it to be moved inside the furnace, vessel, reactor, or gasiﬁer. Non-transferred plasma arc torches can operate on air, N2, oxygen, H2, CO, or CO2 between 50 and 2,000 kW. PSC’s convertible arc torch can transfer the arc on the ﬂy from the working material to a front electrode installed on the torch, allowing both transferred and nontransferred operation.18 Torch power ranges depend on the size of the torch procured. A PT50 operates between 10 and 100 kW. This torch is suited for R&D and laboratory work. A PT150 operates between 100 and 300 kW. It is suited for pilot-scale projects and small industrial applications. PT200 operates between 200 and 900 kW and offers hightemperature operation well suited for applications processing wastes into fuel, producing silicon ingots and recovering high-value metals. The PT 250 operates between 800 and 3,000 kW and is used in applications such as waste pyrolysis and metal recovery. It is used in ash melting and low-level nuclear waste processing. The PT255 is the largest torch operating between 1,500 and 3,000 kW.18 PSC’s plasma heating technology is used to generate electricity from MSW at the Plasco Energy Group facility in Ottawa, Canada installed on Plasco’s conversion

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

227

process. Also, Kobelco Eco-Solutions Company, Ltd. in Kobe, Japan uses PSC plasma heating technology to remediate ash from municipal incinerators reducing the volume and toxicity of the ash waste. PyroGenesis Plasma-Based Waste to Energy PyroGenesis builds plasma-based waste treatment systems, plasma torch systems, metal dross recovery systems, and custom high-temperature equipment. PyroGenesis develops and commercializes technologies based upon the use of intense energy found in plasma to convert waste into energy and useful by-products. PyroGenesis has developed a specialty system to treat various waste streams on board ships. PyroGenesis is a plasma waste technology provider and is capable of designing and manufacturing its own plasma torches. PyroGenesis’s waste treatment technologies include the “Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System (PAWDS)” for nonhazardous combustible ship-board applications. The PAWDS is capable of treating a variety of waste generated on board a ship such as paper, cardboard, food, food contaminated waste, plastics, textiles, wood, cabin waste, biosludge, and sludge oil. The effective destruction of these wastes eliminates the need for off-loading of waste in port. Also, PyroGenesis has the wasteto-energy “Plasma Resource Recovery System (PRRS)” for hazardous, industrial, clinical, and municipal solid wastes. PyroGenesis designs and manufactures 50–500 kW plasma torch systems for its own use as well as for sale to third parties. These plasma torches supply high energy with temperatures near 5,000 C for gasiﬁcation or vitriﬁcation of waste materials. As stated, the PyroGenesis’ torches range in power from 50 to 500 kW.19 Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC (InEnTec) InEnTec (Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC), has developed the proprietary Plasma Enhanced Melter, PEM, system, which can convert many types of waste materials to Syngas which then can be converted to many clean fuels and/or generate electricity. A by-product is a solid nonleachable glasslike material that can be used to create items such as blasting grit or building materials and recoverable metals. The PEM system has proven effective, and commercial units are operational. The diagram on the left of Fig. 11.17 illustrates the relative locations of the AC resistive heating and DC plasma-arc heating electrodes and the two areas where heating takes place. The DC plasma power is controlled by current and voltage. Adjusting the AC current ﬂowing through the molten glass bath controls the joule heating power. The resistance of the molten glass determines the corresponding power added. The resistance of the glass is controlled by its composition. Thus, the operator will set the desired power as a set point and the AC power supply will achieve this power input by automatically adjusting the AC current to achieve that set point. The syngas produced by the gasiﬁcation of the feedstock/waste consists primarily of H2 and CO, which is removed from the chamber as shown in Figs. 11.19 and 11.20.

228

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.17 (InEnTec).20

PEM Process System by Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC

The syngas is further processed downstream via a gas scrubber system. The process chamber is maintained under a slight vacuum by the syngas vent system. The typical PEM system coverts waste solids feed to syngas, glass, and metals. Application of the syngas can be for electric power generation and production of SNG, methanol, ethanol, and chemical feedstock for petrochemical industry. The nonleachable solid

PLASMA ARC GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 11.18

229

Plasma Enhanced Melter, PEM Simpliﬁed Process Flow Diagram.

glasslike material can be used for sand blasting media, construction materials such as aggregate and glass ﬁber, shingle materials, and road material. The metal can be recycled. A skid-mounted unit of the PEM process is shown to the right of Fig. 11.17.20 A simpliﬁed process ﬂow diagram of the PEM system is shown in Fig. 11.18. A process schematic for the PEM process chamber is shown in Fig. 11.19, which shows main locations of the chamber’s key process elements. Also,

FIGURE 11.19

Process Schematic for the PEM Process Chamber.21

230

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.20

Gasiﬁcation, InEnTec Process, Liquid Fuels from Municipal Solid Waste.22

the process chamber accomplishes gasiﬁcation of the organic constituents and vitriﬁcation of the mineral constituents simultaneously.21 Figure 11.20 illustrates the InEnTec gasiﬁcation process for the production of liquid fuels such as ethanol and methanol from MSW. MSW enters the top of the plasma arc gasiﬁer whereby the organic constituents are gasiﬁed to syngas (primarily H2 and CO) and the high-temperature process produces vitriﬁed glassy material and metals. The syngas is shown downstream of the gasiﬁer as reacting with catalysts to produce ethanol and methanol fuels.22 OTHER GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY Thermoselect Process by Interstate Waste Technologies Interstate Waste Technologies (IWT) has a process that transforms MSW into useable materials via gasiﬁcation of waste into energy-rich Syngas. The Syngas can be used to generate electricity or to manufacture clean diesel or H2 fuel and other valuable by-products. The IWT technology is called the thermoselect process and is illustrated in Fig. 11.21. Thermoselect is a high-temperature gasiﬁcation process. The technology has an initial pyrolysis (degassing) chamber at 570 F (300 C), which decomposes the MSW into syngas and a carbon char mixed with inorganic constituents of MSW. The carbon char enters the gasiﬁcation chamber (high-temperature reactor) where oxygen is injected to complete the gasiﬁcation of the carbon at 2,200 F (about 1,200 C) to syngas. The syngas leaves the top of the reactor at about 2,000 F and is then rapidly

OTHER GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 11.21

231

Thermoselect Process by Interstate Waste Technology.23

quench-cooled to below 200 F and cleaned. Cleaning is achieved through the use of acid scrubber followed by alkaline scrubber. Following these cleaning process units, the syngas is passed through a desulfurization process to convert hydrogen sulﬁde (H2S) to elemental sulfur. By-products produced from the syngas cleaning process are marketable materials. The cleaned syngas can then be used as a fuel and combusted in a boiler, gas turbine, or reciprocating engine for power generation. The cleaned syngas is estimated to have a higher heating value of 256 Btu per cubic foot. Inorganic constituents in the MSW are mainly metals and silica and are heated in the bottom of the reactor where oxygen is added at >3,000 F whereby the inorganic material is converted to molten slag. The molten slag ﬂows into a water bath and is recovered as a slag aggregate. Slag aggregate is a saleable product and so are the by-products produced from the cleaning of the syngas.11,23 IWT is the sole North American licensee of the thermoselect gasiﬁcation technology. Thermoselect gasiﬁcation can process several types of waste, which include MSW, construction waste, industrial waste, and sewage sludge. Thermoselect technology has been in commercial operation at several locations in Japan such as Chiba and Kurashiki processing MSW with other types of waste. Chiba has been operating for the longest time at a capacity of 290 tons/day and Kurashiki is one of the newest facilities at a capacity of 520 tons/day.11,23 Primenergy’s Gasiﬁcation System at Moderate Temperatures Primenergy, L.L.C. is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and with primary business of engineering, procurement, and construction of turnkey, biomass fueled energy conversion, and recovery facilities. Primary products are proprietary thermal oxidizers, gasiﬁcation technology, and gas cleaning processes. Primenergy has extensive experience in the gasiﬁcation and conversion of biomass feedstocks to recover energy

232

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

in the form of steam, heat, and electricity. The gasiﬁcation technology by Primenergy is air-blown, updraft, ﬁxed-bed, and subatmospheric gasiﬁer. The process of gasiﬁcation is the thermal conversion of a solid biomass feed into a gas. The gasiﬁer produces a gas that is typically syngas composed primarily of H2 and CO. Air ﬂow is controlled in the gasiﬁer to maintain proper process operating temperature and the gasiﬁer operates under oxygen-starved atmosphere. Negative pressure within the gasiﬁer is controlled by an induced draft fan located downstream of the heat recovery unit. Commercial sizes vary from 30 to 550 tons/day of biomass. The energy from the gasiﬁcation process is used in a variety of industrial needs such as hot air for material drying, process steam, and the generation of electricity. Also, Primenergy has access to steel fabrication, selection, and installation of refractory by a related company, Heater Specialists, Inc., which specializes in fabrication and refractory installation of ﬂuid catalytic cracking systems. An installation for one of Primenergy’s gasiﬁcation system is shown in Fig. 11.22.24 This facility has been in operation since 1996, and the biomass gasiﬁer technology converts up to 600 ton per day of rice hulls for the customer with the capability of producing 6000 kW of electricity and 100,000 lb/hr steam. Another application of particular interest is Primenergy’s gasiﬁcation technology used for the disposal of poultry litter. Past practice was to spread the poultry waste over agricultural ﬁelds. The intent was enrichment of the soil with this nutrient-laden material. However, poultry waste tends to decompose rapidly, releasing soil nutrients. Over time, these water-soluble leachable nutrients are dissolved in rainwater and get passed into watersheds, causing algae growth, lowering dissolved oxygen levels, and leading to deterioration of water quality. Primenergy came up with a unique solution to the problem of poultry litter. Understanding that one of the primary soil nutrients in the droppings of the poultry litter was phosphorus, a potential problem existed. If the poultry litter is burned at

FIGURE 11.22

Primenergy’s Gasiﬁcation System.24

OTHER GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

233

elevated temperatures such as in an incinerator, phosphate salts and phosphoric acid are formed, which can cause signiﬁcant corrosion problems and fouling of heat recovery boilers. This problem would eliminate the litter as being a potential fuel source in a conventional steam generation plant. To resolve these potential problems, tests were conducted at the Tulsa, Oklahoma facility on poultry litter as an energy source at a rate of 1 ton/hr unit. The test showed that the recoverable energy from the bulk litter was approximately 5.000 Btus per pound. By gasiﬁcation, the lower operating temperature vaporized less of the inorganic nutrients and evolved a syngas that could be “dry scrubbed” to remove any minor amounts of vaporized contaminants. The ash discharged from the gasiﬁer was odor-free and biologically inert. An analytical analysis on the ash revealed that the inorganic soil nutrients and micronutrients remained in the ash. Thus, it was demonstrated that the poultry litter was an energy source and the ash produced from the gasiﬁer had the necessary composition as a fertilizer. Thus, the gasiﬁcation process had the potential for a complete solution to the poultry litter problem by providing energy and a fertilizer for the by-product ash. Working with a company in Maryland whose primary business expertise is the manufacture of process equipment for the fertilizer industry, tests were conducted on the by-product ash. The Maryland company had patents on a process of converting a feed material to fertilizer. One process would mix ash with other raw fertilizer ingredients such as a binder and water to produce a granulated fertilizer. The Maryland company’s research with the litter ash proved that a reﬁned product could be made and marketed as a granulated fertilizer with an estimated value of about $200.00 per ton. If used in conjunction with Primenergy’s gasiﬁcation system, the granulation system turns the ash from the poultry litter into a packageable, exportable, and granulated 5-30-5 fertilizer. The process is called the poultry litter gasiﬁcation granulation process (PLGGP) and is illustrated in Fig. 11.23.24 Currently, commercial economic considerations indicate that a plant capacity in the range of 160 to 250 tons/ day (as received poultry litter) has potential for economic viability.25

Biogas Filter

Ash

Overfire Combustion Tube

Metering Bin

Gasifier

Poultry Litter

Turbine Generator

Boiler Cooler

re Sc en

Dryer

Elevator 3

FIGURE 11.23

Elevator 2

Elevator 1

Ash

Granulator

Fertilizer

Poultry Litter Gasiﬁcation Granulation Process (PLGGP).24

234

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

This process indicates that all solutions by application of gasiﬁcation technology are “not” necessarily done at extremely high temperatures. Research into the constituents and properties of a particular biomass is essential for developing and determining a successful commercial process for use as a feedstock in the production of energy and marketable by-products. Nexterra’s Gasiﬁcation System at Moderate Temperatures Nexterra Energy Corporation develops gasiﬁcation systems to generate energy from waste fuels for use by industrial and institutional customers. Nexterra’s gasiﬁcation technology uses biomass such as wood products from sawmills, panelboard plants, pulp, and paper mills. The Nexterra gasiﬁcation technology uses ﬁxed-bed updraft gasiﬁer. Fuel sized to 3 inches or less is fed into the bottom of the refractory lined gasiﬁer. Combustion air and/or oxygen and steam are also introduced near the bottom of the gasiﬁer. The oxygen is used for the generation of heat following gasiﬁcation of the feedstock by gasiﬁcation reactions, principally endothermic reactions, in an oxygen-deﬁcient atmosphere. The gasiﬁcation reactions proceed at a moderate temperature range of 1,500–1,800 F as the feedstock is converted to syngas. Ash is discharged from the base of the gasiﬁcation reactor/gasiﬁer and is free-ﬂowing because the gasiﬁcation temperature in the fuel bed is kept below the ash melting point. The gasiﬁer has ﬂexibility for operation and can be stable from about 20% to 100% of design capacity. Nexterra gasiﬁers can accommodate a variety of wood fuels with a moisture content of up to 60%. The cleaned syngas can be used as fuel for energy-producing equipment such as boilers, dryers, and kilns. The cleaned syngas can also be used in gas turbines or combustion engines for the production of electricity, steam, and/or hot water. The syngas is composed mainly of H2, CO, and CH4, with some amounts of pyrolysis vapor hydrocarbons.26,27 OTHER PROCESS EQUIPMENTS Candle Filter ConocoPhillips uses a hybrid cyclone-ﬁlter particulate cleanup system at the Wabash River Coal Gasiﬁcation Plant using an oxygen-blown E-Gas gasiﬁer. The system consists of a cyclone and candle ﬁlter as a gas particulate cleanup system. Raw syngas exits the E-Gas gasiﬁer and enters a syngas cooler, which is essentially a ﬁre-tube steam generator producing high-pressure saturated steam. After cooling in the syngas cooler, particulates are removed from the syngas in a hot/dry ﬁlter and recycled to the gasiﬁer. The hot/dry ﬁlter is a candle ﬁlter with metallic candles and designed to operate at 1,000–1,800 F to routinely achieve outlet particle levels at about 0.1 ppmw. Metallic candles proved to be more reliable than ceramic candles in the candle ﬁlter.28–31 A Siemens-Westinghouse particulate control device (PCD) is a candle ﬁlter with a tangential side inlet and a single cluster holding ﬁlters in two plenums that are back-pulsed separately. It is designed to operate at 1,000–1,800 F.31

OTHER PROCESS EQUIPMENTS

235

FIGURE 11.24 Schematic of a Candle Filter Unit Based Dry Cleaning System.28,32

This new emerging technology of a candle ﬁlter is in simplicity the accepted basic concept of a dust collector, i.e., a baghouse with ﬁlter bags and periodic reverse pulse gas jet cleaning of the bags. In the case of high-temperature gasiﬁer using the candle ﬁlter for particulate removal, the unit comprises multiple particulate ﬁlter elements in the shape of a candle arranged similar to the simplistic diagram shown in Fig. 11.24.32 The hot raw “dirty” syngas enters on the outer surface of the candle ﬁlter elements where the particles from the sygnas collect and form a cake of ash as the clean syngas ﬂows into the center of the candle ﬁlter element and passes out from the top of the unit. The buildup of the ash cake/layer on the outer surface of the ﬁlter element causes the pressure drop across the ﬁlter element to increase due to the resistance created by the gas passing through the dust cake layer. Periodically, a gas or inert gas is backpulsed through the candle ﬁlter element to dislodge the ash cake/dust layer from the outer surface of the candle ﬁlter element. The dislodged ash layer is withdrawn from the bottom of the unit.28,32 Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) Units PSA is a technology to separate a constituent from a gas under pressure depending on the constituent’s molecular characteristics and adsorption potential for an adsorbent material. PSA is an energy-efﬁcient noncryogenic way to purify a gas.

236

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

Special adsorbents in a packed bed (column) are used to typically adsorb the undesirable components in the gas stream at high pressure and pass through the desirable component out from the exit of the packed bed. The process then swings to a lower pressure to desorb the undesirable components from the bed. Adsorptive materials such as zeolites preferably adsorb the undesired gaseous components onto their surface at high pressure. Activated carbon is also a wellknown adsorbent material. As an example, H2 gas is to be recovered from a gaseous mixture of H2, CO2, CO, and H2O. The gaseous mixture is passed through an adsorbent bed. The impurities (CO2, CO, and H2O) are adsorbed onto the surface of the adsorbent bed. The H2 passes through the bed and out from the exit of the bed, i.e., out from the top of the packed bed column. Before the adsorbent bed is saturated with the impurities, the bed is depressurized allowing the impurities to be desorbed from the adsorbent and ﬂow out from the bed. This pressurizing/depressurizing cycle or “pressure swing” of the adsorbent bed gives the process its name, PSA. Two vessels are used so while one vessel is pressurizing (adsorbing), the other bed is depressurizing and regenerating its bed (desorbing). H2 purity of >99 þ % is achieved. For a PSA unit producing oxygen from the air, a product purity of oxygen (95% purity) is typical for use in gasiﬁcation plants. N2 gas can be produced from air with a PSA unit with a purity of 95–99.5%.33–37 Mercury Removal Systems Eastman Gasiﬁcation Services Company (a subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company) have a process for vapor-phase removal of mercury from syngas with removal of >90–95%. Eastman Chemical approach to the removal of mercury from the vapor phase has been with activated carbon beds for 20 years. These beds are located upstream of the acid gas removal (AGR) process. Beds are changed every 18–24 months with mercury removal of 90–95%.38–40 Main Sulfur Removal Technologies Selexol process is licensed by UOP, LLC. The Selexol solvent absorbs the acid gases from the Syngas at pressure range from 300 to 2,000 psia. The rich solvent is then reduced in pressure and/or sent to a steam stripper to recover the acid gases. The Selexol process can selectively recover H2S and CO2 as separate streams. Thus, the H2S can be sent to a Claus plant for conversion to elemental sulfur. The CO2 can be recovered and used as a raw material locally and/or sold as a marketable product. The Selexol process uses dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol (DEPE) (Union Carbide’s Selexol solvent) for AGR via physical absorption with removal efﬁciency of 99 þ % sulfur removal. The Selexol solvent is chemically inert and is not subject to degradation. The Selexol process also removes COS, mercaptans, ammonia, HCN, and metal carbonyls.38,41–43 Rectisol process is licensed by Linde, AG. The Rectisol process uses cold methanol at about –40 F, which absorbs the acid gases from syngas at relatively high

COMBUSTION TURBINE FOR SYNGAS AND GAS ENGINE FOR SYNGAS

237

pressures from 400 to 1,000 psia. The rich solvent is then reduced in pressure and/or steam stripped to release and recover the acid gases. The Rectisol process can selectively recover H2S and CO2 as separate streams. Thus, the H2S can be sent to a Claus plant for conversion to elemental sulfur. The CO2 can be recovered and used as a raw material locally and/or sold as a marketable product. The Rectisol process for AGR uses cold methanol and is a physical absorption process recovering between 99.5% and 99.9 þ % sulfur removal and complete CO2 removal is possible. The Rectisol process is used by Eastman Chemical.38,44,43 Methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) is a chemical absorption process that absorbs the acid gases from syngas at moderate operating temperature and has low AGR cost. MDEA process has 98% to 99 þ % sulfur removal and can remove CO2. The process consists basically of two columns, one column (absorber) for absorbing the H2S and CO2 with MDEA and the other column (regenerator) for stripping off the H2S and CO2 from the MDEA. In the absorber, the downﬂowing MDEA liquid absorbs the H2S and CO2 from the upﬂowing acid gas. In the regenerator, the downﬂowing MDEA liquid rich in H2S and CO2 is stripped by upﬂowing lean MDEA vapors. The H2S stream is usually sent to a Claus process for recovery of elemental sulfur.38,43

COMBUSTION TURBINE FOR SYNGAS AND GAS ENGINE FOR SYNGAS Siemens-Westinghouse Syngas Combustion Turbine for Syngas In a combined cycle power plant, the hot exhaust gas from the combustion gas turbine is used by a downstream heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for use in a steam turbine. Thus, both the combustion gas turbine and the steam turbine are used to provide power for a generator in the production of electricity with the highest efﬁciency. When the combined cycle power plant is associated with gasiﬁcation technology for the production of the fuel gas to be used by the combustion gas turbine, the system is called IGCC.45–50 For example, gasiﬁcation technology could be used to convert coal and other fuels into a synthetic gas (syngas), which is used by the IGCC system to produce power. Current state-of-the-art gas turbine and steam turbine system is well suited for IGCC power plants. A Siemens’ gas turbine and steam turbine are illustrated in Figs. 11.25 and 11.26, respectively.45 Siemens and former Westinghouse gas turbine division have many years of experience with syngas. Siemens large E-class gas turbine and F-class gas turbine are for use with syngas in IGCC projects. Syngas can be produced from a wide variety of fuels such as coal, biomass, petroleum coke, and reﬁnery residues. The puriﬁed syngas provides a useable source of fuel for the gas turbine. Gas turbines operating on syngas have low NOx emissions and therefore have a positive inﬂuence upon a power plant. An illustration of a pictorial internal view of Siemens’ gas turbine is shown in Fig. 11.27.46

238

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.25 Siemens SGT6-5000F Gas Turbine.45

General Electric (GE) Combustion Turbine for Syngas For a combustion turbine, a couple of typical gaseous fuel sources are available depending on the fuel source. One common source is a medium-heating-value fuel from 200 Btu/SCF to typically 300 Btu/SCF produced from oxygen-blown gasiﬁcation of coal. This manufactured fuel is commonly referred to as syngas or synthesis gas and contains predominantly H2 and CO. These gas mixtures typically produce high ﬂame temperatures. For an air-blown gasiﬁcation of coal or biomass, the typical gaseous fuel produced has a low-heatingvalue fuel of about 100–200 Btu/SCF. A gas turbine obviously must be of a design to operate reliably and efﬁciently on the gaseous fuel and/or fuels available for a particular customer’s application.51 The IGCC power plants are highly efﬁcient commercially in the production of electricity at cost below that of a conventional solid fuel plant. An IGCC power plant has a gaseous fuel supplying a gas turbine producing electricity and the exhaust gases

FIGURE 11.26 Siemens SST6-5000 Steam Turbine.45

COMBUSTION TURBINE FOR SYNGAS AND GAS ENGINE FOR SYNGAS

FIGURE 11.27

239

Siemens Gas Turbine.46

from the gas turbine are fed to an HRSG that produces steam for a steam turbine producing electricity. The combined electricity from the gas turbine followed by the steam turbine makes the IGCC an efﬁcient process for the production of electricity. With a coal gasiﬁcation plant producing syngas for use in the IGCC power plant, the synthetic gas (syngas) has a low heating value; therefore, the mass ﬂow and thus power output of the gas turbine is much higher for an IGCC application. For a GE model 7FA gas turbine on syngas would be rated at about 197 MW but for an IGCC operation it would be 280 MW. IGCC SOx, NOx, and particle emissions are fractions of those of a conventional pulverized coal (PC) boiler power plant.52,53 An illustration of a GE model MS 7001FA gas turbine is shown in Fig. 11.28.54 The GE model MS 7001FA gas turbine was used in the clean coal technology (CCT) demonstration program in cooperation between government and industry to demonstrate a new generation of innovative coal gasiﬁcation process and power plant.

FIGURE 11.28

General Electric Model MS 7001FA Gas Turbine.54

240

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

The Wabash River CCT project successfully demonstrated the E-Gas coal gasiﬁcation technology with electrical power generation. Emissions of SO2 and NOx were far below regulatory requirements. SO2 emissions averaged about 0.1 lb/million Btu compared with the allowable limit of 1.2 lb/million Btu. NOx emissions were 0.15 lb/million Btu, which met current requirements for a coal-ﬁred power plant. Particulate emissions were below detectable limit.54 The cleaned syngas at the Wabash River project was used as fuel in the GE model MS 7001FA gas turbine where the gas was combusted to generate electricity. The Wabash River project was the ﬁrst to use an “F” machine on syngas. Advanced gas turbine design allows for the syngas combustion at ﬁring temperature of 2,350 F. Syngas humidiﬁcation was performed prior to combustion to control combustion temperature, reduce NOx formation, and improve efﬁciency. Gas turbine exhaust heat was supplied to the HRSG to produce steam for generation of electricity in a steam generator.54,55

GE Gas Engine for Syngas GE Jenbacher is a manufacturer of gas-fueled reciprocating engines, packaged generator sets, and cogeneration systems for power generation.56 These gas engines are primarily designed to operate on fuel gas such as natural gas, biogas, landﬁll gas, and syngas. Various gases of extremely low caloriﬁc value (BTU value) with high water content and varying composition can be used as fuel to run the GE Jenbacher engines. GE Jenbacher combustion engines can use biogas as fuels created by anaerobic fermentation of biological materials. Biogas includes mainly CH4 and CO2 as the constituents. A biogas can originate from the anaerobic fermentation of organic materials. Landﬁll gas is created by the decomposition/fermentation of the organic substances such as from MSW, consists mainly of CH4, CO2, and N2 (N2), and has a caloriﬁc value of about 480 Btu/SCF. Typical composition can be 45–60% volume CH4, 40–60% volume CO2 and 2–5%volume N2. Digester gas (sewage or biogas) has a caloriﬁc value of about 690 Btu/SCF. Note that natural gas is typically 950–1150 Btu/SCF. A simpliﬁed schematic of a process generating biogas and using a GE Jenbacher combustion engine to generate electricity is shown in Fig. 11.29. Syngas or synthetic gas or synthesis gas has a caloriﬁc value of 125–350 Btu/ SCF. GE Jenbacher engines can run on syngas as a fuel gas, which has a very low caloriﬁc value. A simpliﬁed schematic of a gasiﬁcation process generating syngas and using a GE Jenbacher combustion engine to generate electricity is shown in Fig. 11.30. GE’s Jenbacher gas engines range in power from 0.25 to 3 MW and operate with natural gas or a variety of other gases such as biogas, landﬁll gas, coal mine gas, sewage gas, and industrial combustible waste gases. The Jenbacher type 2 operates in the 350 kW range. Jenbacher type 3 runs between 500 and 1,100 kW power range. The Jenbacher type 4 engine operates in the power range 800–1,500 kW. A Jenbacher type 6 engine runs in the power range of 1.8–3 MW. The new Jenbacher J624 GS can operate with electrical output of 4 MW.56,57

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter)

241

FIGURE 11.29 Schematic of Process Producing Biogas and Using a GE Jenbacher Combustion Engine to Generate Electricity.56,57

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter) The feedstocks for gasiﬁers are diverse solid particulate materials with properties including particulate size, composition, density, and ﬂow characteristics. The feedstock could be sticky due to moisture content, therefore posing a problem for instrumentation such as meters for measuring mass ﬂow rate. Some new metering technology has emerged over the past several years to resolve the problems associated with measuring mass ﬂow of solids (particulate mass ﬂow) through process lines and ducts.

FIGURE 11.30 Schematic of Gasiﬁcation Process Producing Syngas and Using a GE Jenbacher Combustion Engine to Generate Electricity.56,57

242

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.31 RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, 6-inch diameter Gravity Flow Type Metering Material, 0.5 to 1.5 micron range Mineral Powder.

This new development in mass ﬂow metering technology is known as the RayMas meter, i.e., proprietary and patented noncontact solid ﬂow metering technology. Simply put, the RayMas meter consists of the following components: a ﬂow tube, a sensor, and controls/instrumentation. A picture of an early version of the meter with components is shown in Fig. 11.31, a 6-inch diameter gravity ﬂow type meter. As shown, a ﬁne mineral powder is conveyed by a screw feeder into the top of the Raymas meter and drops by gravity ﬂow through the meter, discharging out from the bottom of the meter into another screw feeder, which then feeds the ﬁne mineral powder into a furnace. The ﬁne mineral powder has a particle size ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mm. Referring to the simpliﬁed representation of the RayMas noncontact solids particulate ﬂow meter (Fig. 11.32), the sensor transmits a low-energy microwave to the particulate matter passing through a ﬂow tube. The intensity of the reﬂected Doppler-shifted energy is measured by the sensor converting it into a 4–20 mA signal. This signal is then converted by a unique algorithm in the controller/instrumentation to mass ﬂow rate, such as pounds per hour of particulate material. RayMas measures the intensity of reﬂected Doppler-shifted energy, which is based upon velocity and ﬂow quantity of material. Thus only moving material is measured and buildup has little inﬂuence upon the meter. In RayMas solids ﬂow meter, a proprietary design is used coupled with a unique algorithm to provide a meter with mass ﬂow rate and

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter)

FIGURE 11.32

243

RayMas Solids Flow Meter, Simpliﬁed Schematic Representation.

totalizer (quantity) measurement capabilities for each particular material to be metered. Gravity ﬂow type and pneumatic ﬂow type meters are available, but experience has shown that the gravity ﬂow type is the most easily adapted to applications. The 6-inch diameter and a 8-inch diameter gravity ﬂow meter are shown in Fig. 11.33. The 8-inch diameter meter is being used to meter a corn by-product material at ﬂow rates from 8000 to 20,000 lbs/hr. For another gravity ﬂow application, a 20-inch diameter meter has been installed for metering a wet corn ﬁbrous material at rates between 15,000 and 40,000 lbs/hour. The 20-inch diameter meter is shown in Fig. 11.34. A 4-inch diameter meter is shown in Fig. 11.35 for a pneumatic conveying (P.C.) type of RayMas noncontact solids ﬂow meter. The RayMas meter is a new technology and of unique and proprietary design. Final accuracy of the RayMas meter depends on the material being measured and the

244

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.33 RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Gravity Flow Type; 6-inch Diameter Metering Whole Corn, Similar 8-inch Diameter Metering Ground Processed Corn.

FIGURE 11.34 RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, 20-inch Diameter, Gravity Flow Type, Product Material Metered—Wet Corn Material.

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter)

FIGURE 11.35

245

RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Pneumatic Conveying (P.C.) Type.

particular installation. Gravity ﬂow applications produce a more reliable mass ﬂow reading compared with pneumatic ﬂow applications. A pneumatic ﬂow application has more variables for a particular installation, such as gas ﬂow conditions and suspension of particulates in the conveying line. The industrial market has many applications for segments such as chemical, plastics, petroleum, utility (power plants), food, pharmaceutical, cement, mining, precision farming, and others for a gravity type mass meter or a PC type mass ﬂow meter applications. As the new Raymas noncontact solids mass ﬂow meter improves from reﬁnements and upgrades via technology, the market potential and need for such process innovation in metering instrumentation will continue to be of much interest.58–64 In the research and development (R&D) of the RayMas noncontact solids ﬂow meter, many experimental runs were made comparing weighing scale readings with the particular RayMas meter calibrated on a laboratory test stand. Some tests were conducted to develop the technology and other runs were made for calibration of a meter for a particular customer’s industrial application. The following cases were obtained experimentally, and illustrate the future potential for the RayMas noncontact solids ﬂow meter. Typically, a particulate solids material was passed through the

246

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 11.36 Types.

Calibration Equipment for a RayMas Solids Flow Meter, Gravity Flow

meter and recordings of the meter were compared with those from a weighing scale. The experimental apparatus used for some of the experimental tests and calibrations is shown in Fig. 11.36 for use with a gravity ﬂow type meter. Case #1 A small portable RayMas noncontact solids ﬂow meter (gravity type) was designed, developed, and tested on a test stand. Some high-density polyethylene plastic beads were metered into the top of the 2-1/2 inch diameter vertical gravity ﬂow meter and passed through the ﬂow tube into a bin on a weighing scale. From the mass ﬂow rate of beads and the corresponding microwave sensor output, a unique algorithm was computed for the high-density polyethylene plastic beads and for that particular meter. The meter was calibrated for a mass rate range of 0 lbs/hr (no ﬂow) to 1,817 lbs/hr. The beads were 5/32 inch in diameter with a bulk density from 35.78 to 36.14 lbs/ft3. Results from this initial development work were successful as shown in Table 11.1. Case #2 A RayMas gravity ﬂow meter was designed and calibrated for metering green oats. Green oats have the following properties: bulk density ranging from 34.93 lb/ft3 (loose) to 37.67 lb/ft3 (tapped) and particle shape of about 1/2 in. length and 1/8 in. width in the center and tapering toward the ends to a point. The RayMas

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter)

247

TABLE 11.1 Portable RayMas Meter Gravity Flow Type, 2-1/2 inch diameter Meter, Calibration Runs

Run No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

RayMas Meter Reading (lbs/hour)

Weighing Scale Reading (lbs/hour)

Error (%)

91.0 148.9 259.2 419.0 681.9 1053.4

91.1 149.7 258.7 420.0 680.6 1053.9

0.11 0.53 0.19 0.24 –0.19 0.05

Note: Meter: RayMas Solids Flow Meter, 2-1/2 inch diameter, gravity ﬂow type, aluminum product metered: high-density polyethylene plastic beads, 5/32 in. diameter, bulk density (loose) 35.78 lb/ft3, bulk density (tamped)—36.14 lb/ft3. Average absolute weighing error ¼ 0.22 þ /%. The maximum range of mass ﬂow through the meter was designed from 0 to 1817 lbs/hr. This mass rate does not necessarily represent the maximum permissible rate through this meter.

meter is shown as fabricated in Fig. 11.37. The meter mass ﬂow rate data comparing the RayMas meter readings with the weighing scale readings are shown in Fig. 11.38. The cross-sectional diameter of the ﬂow tube of the meter were 12-1/2 in. 22-1/4 in. I.D.

FIGURE 11.37 RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Calibrated for Metering Green Oats, 12-1/2 inch 22-1/4 inch I.D., Gravity Flow Type.

248

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA 319-373-5191 FAX 319-373-5744

Green Oats, "RayMas" Gravity Flow Meter "RayMas" Gravity Meter, Mass Rate and Actual, Mass Rate 200,000

Actual, Mass Rate, (lbs/hour)

175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000

Green Oats 50,000 25,000 0

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

"RayMas" Meter, Mass Rate, (lbs/hour) grgroplt.PDW 12-30-99

FIGURE 11.38 Oats.

RayMas Noncontact Solid Flow Meter, Gravity Type, Metering Green

After installation, test runs were made with the RayMas in a production plant. The results of these runs are shown in Table 11.2. The work in designing and calibrating the RayMas meter for the product, green oats, demonstrated the ﬂexibility in the design of the ﬂow tube and microwave sensor when proper design criteria were followed.58–63 Case #3 A ﬁne powder, an ore oxide, needed to be metered into a high-temperature process operation at a production plant. The ore oxide had a ﬁne crystalline powder having a particle size ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 mm. Flowing properties of this powder are poor to caking. The bulk density ranged from 103.8 lb/ft3 (loose) to 129.6 lbs/ft3 (tapped). The meter was designed and fabricated for this application. The installed meter is shown in Fig. 11.31. The meter mass ﬂow rate data comparing the RayMas meter readings with the weighing scale readings are shown in Fig. 11.39. Case #4 Whole corn was to be metered using a gravity ﬂow type RayMas . The whole corn had the following properties: bulk density ranging from 56.3 lbs/ft3 (loose) to 58.1 lbs/ft3 (tapped). This whole corn was rather free ﬂowing and had typical particle dimensions as 3/8 in. width 9/16 in. length and 3/16 in. thickness. Whole corn was clean with minimal dust.

NONCONTACT SOLIDS FLOW METER FOR WASTE SOLIDS (RayMas Meter)

TABLE 11.2

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5

249

RayMas Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Metering Green Oats

Run Time (hours)

Mass Rate (lbs/hour)

RayMas Meter Totalizer (Pounds)

168 28 — — —

0–114,010 0–110,161 — — —

19,153,740 3,084,500 13,850,160 33,216,080 40,799,370

Customer Scale Totalizer (Pounds)

Error (%)

19,449,500 3,047,400 14,035,300 34,136,500 41,084,000

1.52 1.22 1.32 2.70 0.69

Note: Average absolute deviation from customer scale is 1.49%–.

6

Run Time

RayMas Meter Totalizer

28 hours

3,083,900 lbs

Customer Scale Totalizer

Truck Scale (Weights and Measures)

3,084,500 lbs

3,047,400 lbs

Note: For Runs 1 and 2, the mass rate was estimated from the totalizer reading and the hours of the run. Operations at the customer’s plant could process green oats from no mass ﬂow rate to maximum rate of the meter calibrated. At a test facility, the RayMas meter was calibrated for mass rate ranging from 0 to 175,000 lbs/hour.

"RayMas" Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, 6"-industrial 5000

Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E. GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA 52402-6967 319-373-5191 FAX 319-373-5744 [email protected] www.gycoinc.com

4500

Actual Mass Rate (lbs/hr)

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500

Fine Powder

1000 500 0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

"RayMas" Meter Reading (lbs/hr) average accuracy 1.5 %+/-

GYCO, Inc, rmpow1.PDW

FIGURE 11.39 RayMas Non-Contact Solids Flow Meter, 6-inch Diameter Gravity Type, Fine Powder Product Metered: Fine Ore Powder, Particle Size Range Between 0.5 to 1.5 micron.

250

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

Mass Rate by "RayMas" Noncontact 6"-diameter Gravity Solids Flow Meter versus Mass Rate by Weigh Scale when Metering Whole Corn

Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E. GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 319-373-5191 12-01-2004

24,000

Mass Rate by Weigh Scale, (lbs/hour)

22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000

Whole Corn

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0

2000

4000

6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 Mass Rate by "RayMas" Gravity Flow Meter, (lbs/hour)

Average absolute error is 2.7 +/- %

FIGURE 11.40 Whole Corn.

RayMas

graph acc wh corn bunge 12 01 2004.PDW

Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Gravity Flow Type Metering

Comparison of the mass rate indicated by the RayMas gravity ﬂow meter and with weighing scale readings is shown in Fig. 11.40. Case #5 A milled shelled corn was to be metered in a PC line, 10—in.-diameter PC line. The conveying was by dilute phase. The shelled corn was ﬁrst milled in a hammer mill to particles typically 1/16 in. in diameter to some 1/8 in. in diameter. The bulk density of the hammer milled corn was 37.4 lb/ft3 (loose) to 49.8 lb/ft3 (tapped). The material was conveyed in a 10-inch diameter line for about 400 feet with air at about 3,500 cubic feet per minute (SCFM). The conveying line operation is under vacuum conditions. Comparison of the mass rate indicated by the RayMas PC type ﬂow meter with the weighing scale readings is shown in Fig. 11.41. The difﬁculty of metering this material in PC conditions is that the air used for conveying can be at high humidity (fog) atmospheric conditions and becomes rather tacky and sticky. This creates a material ﬂowing through a pipe that sticks and then ﬂuffs off. Such erratic ﬂow/ transport conditions will demonstrate problems that need to be addressed by ﬂow tube design considerations. A picture of a 4-inch diameter P.C. RayMas meter in a test pneumatic test loop is illustrated in Fig. 11.35. The RayMas noncontact solids ﬂow meter technology is in its infancy and of unique and proprietary design.58–63 The potential for this meter in the industrial

REFERENCES

251

10" - "RayMas" Pneumatic Conveying (P.C.) Meter, Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E. 319-373-5191 GYCO, Inc. fax 319-373-5744 Noncontact Solids Flow Meter, Cedar Rapids, IA 52402-6967 Metering Hammer Milled Shelled Corn [email protected]

60,000

Actual Mass Rate (lbs/hr)

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

"RayMas" Meter Reading (lbs/hr) average accuracy 2.2 %+/-

orginal cal data for GRAPH 02 27 2001.PDW

FIGURE 11.41 RayMas Noncontact Solid Flow Meter, Pneumatic Conveying (P.C.) Type, 10-inch Diameter, Metering a Hammer Milled Shelled Corn.

market is substantial in the chemical, plastics, petroleum utility (power plants), food, pharmaceutical, cement, mining, and farming for both gravity and pneumatic type ﬂow meters. As this new technology develops, so will the accuracy, ease of installation, and calibration of the RayMas meter.

REFERENCES 1. Young, G.C., “Zapping MSW with Plasma Arc,” Pollution Engineering, November 2006. 2. Young, G.C., “How Trash Can Power Ethanol Plants,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, p. 72, February 2007. 3. Young, G.C.“From Waste Solids to Fuel, ” Pollution Engineering, February 2008. 4. Rataﬁa-Brown, J., Manfredo, L., Hoffmann, J., and Ramezan, M., “Major Environmental Aspects Of Gasiﬁcation-Based Power Generation Technologies, Final Report,” Gasiﬁcation Technologies Program, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), December 2002. 5. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Combined Heat and Power Market Potential for Opportunity Fuels,” Distributed Energy Program Report, August 2004. 6. Process Energy Solutions (PES), Patterson, New York, May 2009. 7. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Wabash River Coal Gasiﬁcation Repowering Project; A DOE Assessment, DOE/NETL2—2/1164, January 2002.

252

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

8. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, “Gasiﬁcation of Solid And Liquid Fuels For Power Generation—Status Report,” December 1998. 9. Oliver, R. “Application of BGL Gasiﬁcation of Solid Hydrocarbons for IGCC Power Generation,” Global Energy, Inc. Technical paper presented at 2000 Gasiﬁcation Technologies Conference, San Francisco, California, October 8–11, 2000. 10. Gaudig, U., “Experience During Erection and Commissioning the Gasiﬁcation Plant Seal Sands, UK,” Technical paper presented at 2001 Gasiﬁcation Technologies Conference, San Francisco, California, October 7–10, 2001. 11. “Conversion Technology Evaluation Report,” Prepared for: The County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works and The Los Angeles County Solids Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force’s Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee; Prepared by URS Corporation, August 18, 2005. 12. Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, Madison, PA, www.westinghouse-plasma.com. 13. Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, Plasma Torches, www.westinghouse-plasma.com, 05/ 08/2009. 14. Martin, Jr., R.C., “Plasma Gasiﬁcation of MSW,” North Carolina Chapter—SWANA, Fall Technical Conference, Wrightsville Beach, NC, August 27, 2008, www.jacobyenergy. com, www.geoplasma.com. 15. Carabin, P., “Plasma Technology for Waste Treatment,” International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment of Waste, May 14, 2007. 16. EUROPLASMA, 21 RUE Daugere, 33 520 Bruges, France, www.europlasma.com. 17. Europlasma, CHO-Power plant, www.cho-power.com, 05/08/2009. 18. Phoenix Solutions Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Plasma torches, www.phoenixsolutionsco.com, 05/08/2009. 19. PyroGenesis, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, www.pyrogenesis,com, 05/08/2009. 20. Integrated Environmental Technologies, LLC, InEnTech, www.inentec.com, 05/08/2009. 21. “Environmental Technology Veriﬁcation Report for the Plasma Enhanced Melter,” Prepared by Environmental Technology Evaluation Center (EvTEC), CERF/IIEC Report: #40633, May 2002. 22. Surma, J., “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Conversion of Waste into Clean Fuel,” InEnTec, November 21, 2008. 23. Interstate Waste Technologies, Inc., http://iwtonline.com/technology/index.html, 05/08/2009. 24. Primenergy, L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, www.primenergy.com, 05/09/2009. 25. McQuigg, K., Primenergy, LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Private communication, May 11, 2009. 26. Nexterra Energy Corporation, www.nexterra.ca, May 12, 2009. 27. Editorial Comment, Sawn & Quartered, “Following Oil Money, When the oil patch starts investing in wood residues, it’s time to take our own biomass potential seriously,” Canadian Wood Products, January/February 2007. 28. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), www.netl.doe.gov, 2007. 29. Longanbach, J.R., Smith, P.V., and Wheeldon, J., “Operation of the Transport Gasiﬁer and Particulate Control Device at the Power Systems Development Facility,” 1999.

REFERENCES

253

30. Vimalchand, P., Leonard, R.F., Pinkston, T.E., Smith, P.V., and Wheeldon, J.M., “Power Systems Development Facility: Status and Operation of a Transport Reactor System with a Westinghouse Candle Filter,” 1998. 31. Leonard, R., Rogers, L., Vimalchand, P., Liu Guohai, Smith, P.V., and Longanabach, J., “Development Status of the Transport Gasiﬁer at the PSDF,” KBR Paper #1707, October 7-10, 2001. 32. Sharma, S. and Thambinulthu, K., “Research Aimed at Lower Emissions,” Centre for Low Emission Technology, Annual Report, cLET, Level 3, Technology Transfer Centre, Technology Court, Pullenvale, OLD Australia 4069, March 2006, www.clet.net. 33. Praxair, Inc., www.praxair.com, 2007. 34. Universal Industrial Gases, Inc., www.uigi.com, 2007. 35. The Linde Group and BOC Gases, www.linde.com, www.boc-gases.com, 2009. 36. NATCO, Hydrogen Purity by Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), www.natcogroup.com, 2009. 37. UOP, A Honeywell Company, www.uop.com, 2009. 38. Lilly, R.D., “Eastman Gasiﬁcation Overview,” Eastman Gasiﬁcation Services Company (subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Company), April 2005. 39. Rutkowski, M.D., Klett, M.G., and Maxwell, R.C., “The Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant,” Gasiﬁcation Technologies Public Policy Workshop, Washington, D.C., October 1, 2002. 40. Stiegel, G.J., Longanbach, J.R., Klett, M.G., Maxwell, R.C., and Rutkowski, M.D., “The Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant,” Final Report, Prepared for U.S. D.O.E. and NETL by Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc., September 2002. 41. UOP, LLC, Gas Processing, SELEXOL, 2002. 42. Sweny, J.W., “Synthetic Fuel Gas Puriﬁcation by the SELEXOL Process,” 1973. 43. Gallaspy, D., “Eastman Gasiﬁcation Overview, GTC Regulators Workshop, April 12, 2005. 44. Rectisol Process, The Linde Group, www.linde-engineering.com, 5/10/2009. 45. Feller, G.J. and Gadde, S., “Introducing The SGCC6-5000F 2 1 Reference Power Block For IGCC Applications,” Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 2006. 46. Siemens Power Technology, “Siemens Combined Cycle Power Plant (SCC),” Siemens Power Generation, Inc., www.power-technology.com, 05/12/2009. 47. Siemens Power Technology, “Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle (IGCC),” www. power-technology.com, 05/12/2009. 48. Poloczek, V. and Hermsmeyer, H., “Modern Gas Turbines with High Fuel Flexibility,” Siemens AG, Energy Sector, Germany 2006. 49. Gadde, S., Xia J. and McQuiggan, G., “Advanced F Class Gas Turbines Can Be A Reliable Choice For IGCC Applications,” Siemens Power Generation, Inc., 2006. 50. Gadde, S., Wu J., Gulati A., McQuiggan, G., Doestlin, B. and Prade, B., “Syngas Capable Combustion Systems Development For Advanced Gas Turbines,” Siemens Power Generation, Inc. 2005. 51. Phillips, J., “Different Types of Gasiﬁers and Their integration with Gas Turbines,” EPRI/ Advanced Coal Generation, 2006. 52. GE Energy, “IGCC Beneﬁts,” www.gepower.com, May 11, 2009.

254

MSW GASIFIERS AND PROCESS EQUIPMENT

53. GE Energy, “Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Products,” www.gepower.com, May 2007. 54. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Wabash River Coal Gasiﬁcation Project Joint Venture, “Clean Coal Technology, The Wabash River Coal Gasiﬁcation Repowering Project, A 262 MWe Commercial Scale Integrated Gasiﬁcation Combined Cycle Power Plant, An Update,” Topical Report Number 20, September 2000. 55. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), “Wabash River Coal Gasiﬁcation Repowering Project: A DOE Assessment,” DOE/NETL2002/1164, January 2002. 56. GE Energy, (GE Jenbacher, division of GE Energy), News Release, www.gepower.com, May 3, 2004. 57. GE Energy (GE Jenbacher, division of GE Energy), www.gepower.com, May 11, 2009. 58. Young, G.C., U.S. Patent No. 5,986,553, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., [email protected]. 59. Young, G.C., U.S. Patent No. 6,404,344, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., [email protected]. 60. Young, G.C., U.S. Patent No. 7,310,046, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., [email protected]. 61. Young, G.C., Canadian Patent No. 2,207,132, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., gycoinc@aol. com. 62. Young, G.C., Canadian Patent No. 2,322,375, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., gycoinc@aol. com. 63. Young, G.C., Canadian Patent No. 2,555,546, RayMas meter, GYCO, Inc., gycoinc@aol. com. 64. “RayMas” is a registered trademark of GYCO, Inc., [email protected].

CHAPTER 12

Other Renewable Energy Sources

WIND ENERGY: INTRODUCTION As a historical account of wind energy and its origin, the Chinese ﬁrst invented windmills in about 200 B.C. according to most experts. About 500–900 A.D., windmills sprang up across Persia for grinding grain and pumping water. Between 1941 and 1945, a Vermont wind generator, called the Smith–Putnam machine, is credited as being the ﬁrst to supply power to the local electrical grid. In 1981–1984, California witnessed the addition of 6,870 turbines by wind energy speculators. In 1992, the Federal Energy Policy Act offered power companies a 1.7-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of wind-generated electricity they produce and offer customers. Currently, the Federal tax credit is 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for windgenerated energy. In addition, the state of Iowa has recently enacted an additional state tax credit equal to 1 cent per kilowatt-hour of wind energy generated by utilities and smaller independent power producers.1,2 Currently there is interest in using wind energy to generate electricity via windmills (wind turbines), which on a large scale is called a wind farm. A wind turbine consists of blades, which are turned by air currents passing over them much like a propeller whereby the air current lifts the blades in a similar manner as the wind lifts an airplane’s wing. On these turbines, the blades are mounted on a pole or tower, which is 100 feet or more in height. The rotating blades turn a gearbox inside a housing, called a nacelle, which in turn generates the electricity. In summary for a wind turbine, the wind turns the blades, which turns the shaft and generates electricity as illustrated in Fig. 12.1.3 Figure 12.1 is a pictorial representation of a GE Power 1.5 MW Series Wind Turbine. Over 5,000 units are in operation worldwide and this 1.5 MW unit is one of the world’s widely used wind turbines in its class. The 1.5 MW machine is active yaw and pitch regulated with power/torque control and an asynchronous generator. All the nacelle components are joined on a common structure. The generator and gearbox are supported by elastomeric elements to minimize noise emissions. In a wind turbine,

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

255

256

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.1

GE, 1.5 MW Series Wind Turbine Components.3

the nacelle refers to the structure that houses the generating components, gearbox, drive train, rotor shaft, yaw drive, pitch drive, etc.3 Wind is a form of solar energy because winds are caused by the uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the nonuniform surface of the earth, and the rotation of the earth. Wind ﬂow patterns vary due to the earth’s terrain, bodies of water, and vegetation. Wind energy is a process that describes how wind is used to generate mechanical power or electricity. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical power, which then is converted to electricity by a generator. The amount of wind capacity that is converted to electricity by the turbines in a farm is called the “capacity factor.” By deﬁnition, the “capacity factor” is the amount of system capacity converted to energy for the time period under consideration. Typically, large wind turbines are classiﬁed as being 100 kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW) in capacity. Small wind turbines usually are listed as below 100 kW in size. Some of the basic components are shown in Fig. 12.2 and listed below.4 a. Anemometer: Measures the wind speed and transmits wind speed data to the controller. b. Blades: Typically, a turbine will have two or three blades whereby the wind blowing over the blades causes the blades to lift and rotate. c. Brake: A disc brake that can be applied to stop the rotor in emergencies. d. Controller: The controller typically starts the turbine at wind speeds from 8 to 16 miles per hour and shuts down the unit at speeds above 55 mph. The low wind speed shutdown is due to the generator design limits, and the high wind speed can result in damage to the unit. e. Gear box: Gears connect the low-speed shaft to the high-speed shaft to increase rotational speeds from about 30 rpm to 60 rpm to near 1,000 to 1,800 rpm as required by most generators to produce electricity. f. Generator: The generator is typically an induction generator that produces 60-cycle AC electricity. g. High-speed shaft: The high-speed shaft drives the generator. h. Low-speed shaft: The low-speed shaft is turned by the rotor at about 30–60 rpm.

WIND ENERGY: INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 12.2

257

Nacelle, Wind Becomes Electricity.4

i. Nacelle: The nacelle is located on top of the tower, and covers and contains the gear box, shafts, generator, controller, and brake. j. Pitch: Blades are turned or pitched out of the wind to control the rotor speed and keep the rotor from turning in wind speeds too low or too high for producing electricity. k. Rotor: The blades and hub are called the rotor. l. Tower: Towers are used to elevate the nacelle into winds with higher velocity because wind speed increases with height. Taller towers enable the turbine to capture more energy and generate more electricity. m. Wind direction: An upwind turbine operates facing the wind. A downward turbine faces away from the wind. n. Wind vane: The wind vane measures wind direction and communicates this data to the yaw drive to orient the turbine with respect to the wind.

258

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

o. Yaw drive: Upwind turbines face into the wind and the yaw drive is used to keep the rotor facing into the wind as the wind direction changes. p. Yaw motor: The yaw motor drives the yaw drive.

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY A number of turbines located together constitute a wind farm as shown in Fig. 12.3. The electricity generated from a wind farm can be collected by a utility and sent to the regular utility grid. Since wind is typically intermittent, when the wind does not blow sufﬁciently to generate energy/electricity, other forms of energy sources must be available to the grid for a steady supply of energy to customers. The regular utility grid is also therefore supplied with electricity from power plants using natural gas, coal, hydro, and/or nuclear energy.5 Many are interested by a proﬁt motive or environmental motive for using wind energy because wind energy is an environmentally friendly source of energy and is considered as “green energy.” Consequently, considerable interest in wind farms has attracted the attention of citizens, environmental groups, politicians, and commercial companies. With the considerable interest in wind farms, an economic reality check is needed to focus a proper business direction for both the private and public sectors. Thus, the following examples and/or cases for the economic of large-scale wind farms were computed. Large-scale wind farms are presented in Figs. 12.3 and 12.4. Figure 12.4 shows the turbines of a big wind farm up close.6,5 MidAmerican Energy, Inc. has built the world’s largest wind energy generation project in Iowa. The capital cost of the project is reported to be $323 million; it consists of 180–200 wind turbines and has a capacity of 310 MW. An additional capital cost of $15 million will be for interconnecting and development, which adds

FIGURE 12.3

Big Wind Farm.5

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

FIGURE 12.4

259

Big Wind Farm/Turbines.6

up to a total capital investment of $338 million. Landowners will be paid $4,000 per turbine annually for easements. These economic data/parameters were considered for the following preliminary economic assessment of the MidAmerican project.7,6 Many with a proﬁt motive and/or an environmental motive brandish about the economy of wind farms to generate electricity because wind energy is an environmentally friendly source of energy/electricity or “green power.” Thus, wind farms attracts the attention of many, including regular citizens, environmental groups, politicians, and commercial companies. With this diverse interest, a sense of direction is needed to bring a “reality check” on the commercial viability as to the “economics” of wind farms. A reality check can be formulated in our opinion by considering the following example for a large-scale wind farm. In a published article, MidAmerican Energy, Inc. plans to build the world’s largest wind energy generation project in Iowa. As reported, the project will consist of 180–200 wind turbines and have a capacity of 310 MW of electricity. The project is reported to cost $323 million. An additional capital cost of $15 million would be used for interconnecting and development costs giving a total estimated capital cost of $338 million for the economic evaluation. Landowners will be paid $4,000 per turbine annually for turbine easements. With this data as a basis, consider the economics of this project as discussed but ﬁrst with a detailed method of ﬁnancial analysis presented:7 Economic Example and Cases Example: Wind Farm Financial Analysis, Before Taxes (detailed methodology): INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years

260

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Bond interest rate Payments per year Capacity factor Federal tax credit State tax credit Green tags **Selling price of energy O&M Number of turbines Easement cost

5.50% 2 35.0% 1.80 cents/kWh 1.00 cents/kWh 2.00 cents/kWh 0.1380 cents/kWh 1.9000 cents/kWh 200 $4,000.00/year/turbine

OUTPUT: Production 950,460,000 kWh/year (310 MW 1000 kW/MW (35.0/100) 24 hours/day 365 days/year) Revenues: Expenditures: Energy Sales $1,311,634.80/year Bond payment $28,075,303.71/year (950,460,000 kWh/year 0.1380 ¢/kWh/100) Federal tax credit $17,108,280.00/year O&M $18,058,740.00/year (950,460,000 kWh/year 1.80 ¢/kWh/100) (950,460,000 kWh/year 1.900 ¢/kwh/100) State tax credit $9,504,600.00/year Easement cost $800,000.00/year (950,460,000 kWh/year 1.0 ¢/kWh/100) ($4,000.00/year/turbine 200 turbines) Green tags $19,009,200.00/year (950,460,000 kWh/year 2.00 ¢/kWh/100) Total Revenue(s) $46,933,714.80/year ¼ ? Total Expenditure(s) $46,934,043.71/year (Note, Total Revenue(s) ¼ Total Expenditure(s) or the difference is zero at breakeven.)

Breakeven is determined by varying the selling price of energy until “total revenue(s) minus total expenditure(s)” is zero. In the example case above, the break-even selling price of energy is 0.1380 cents/kWh (before taxes). Economic Cases 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 will be presented with input ﬁnancial parameters and output computations. After listing these economic cases, a discussion of each case will follow. Case-1A: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 3.37780 cents/kWh O&M 0.33980 cents/kWh

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

Number of turbines Easement cost

261

200 $4,000.00/year/turbine

OUTPUT: Production: Revenues: Energy Sales

$32,104,637.88/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$32,104,637.88/year

950,460,000 kWh/year

¼?

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $3,229,663.08/year 0.3398 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $32,104,966.79/year

Case-1B: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 12 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 3.35900 cents/kWh O&M 0.33980 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine OUTPUT Production Revenues: Energy Sales

$31,925,951.40/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$31,925,951.40/year

950,460,000 kWh/year

¼?

$27,900,709.21/year 2.9355 cents/kWh $3,229,663.08/year 0.3398 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $31,930,372.29/year

262

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Case-1C: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 20.0% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 5.65640 cents/kWh O&M 0.33980 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine OUTPUT Production Revenues: Energy Sales

$30,721,039.68/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$30,721,039.68/year

543,120,000 kWh/year

¼?

Case-2A: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity: 310.00 MW Capital Investment: $338,000,000.00 Financing period: 20 years Bond interest rate: 5.50% Payments per year: 2 Capacity factor: 35.0% Federal tax credit: 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit: 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags: 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy: 3.86800 cents/kWh O&M: 0.83000 cents/kWh Number of turbines: 200 Easement cost: $4,000.00/year/turbine

$28,075,303.71/year 5.1693 cents/kWh $1,845,521.46/year 0.3398 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.1473 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $30,720,825.47/year

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

OUTPUT Production Revenues: Energy Sales

263

950,460,000 kWh/year $36,763,792.80/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$36,763,792.80/year

¼?

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $7,888,818.00/year 0.8300 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $36,764,121.71/year

Case-2B: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 1.06800 cents/kWh O&M 0.83000 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

950,460,000 kWh/year $10,150,912.80/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$17,108,280.00/year

O&M

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $7,888,818.00/year

State tax credit

$9,504,600.00/year

Easement cost

0.8300 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$36,763,792.80/year

0.0842 cents/kWh

¼?

Total Expenditure(s) $36,764,121.71/year

264

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Case-3: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 1.06800 cents/kWh O&M 0.83000 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine OUTPUT Production Revenues: Energy Sales

$10,150,912.80/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$17,108,280.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$9,504,600.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$36,763,792.80/year

950,460,000 kWh/year

¼?

Case-4: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year: 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 2.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 0.93200 cents/kWh O&M 0.83000 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $7,888,818.00/year 0.8300 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $36,764,121.71/year

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

265

950,460,000 kWh/year $8,858,287.20/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$17,108,280.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$9,504,600.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$19,009,200.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$36,763,792.80/year

¼?

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $7,888,818.00/year 0.8300 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $36,764,121.71/year

Case-5: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 310.00 MW Capital Investment $338,000,000.00 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 1.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 0.23800 cents/kWh O&M 1.00000 cents/kWh Number of turbines 200 Easement cost $4,000.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

$2,262,094.80/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$17,108,280.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$9,504,600.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$9,504,600.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$38,379,574.80/year

950,460,000 kWh/year

¼?

$28,075,303.71/year 2.9539 cents/kWh $9,504,600.00/year 1.0000 cents/kWh $800,000.00/year 0.0842 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $38,379,903.71/year

Case-6: Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Capital Cost of Project Finance Structure

$338,000,000 75% debt, 5.5% interest, 20 year, 25% equity

266

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Wind turbines (quantity) Annual easement cost Operation/Maintenance cost Project life Depreciation Power Capacity Capacity factor Selling price of energy Federal Tax Credit

200 $4,000 per turbine per year $3,230,000 per year 20 years MACRS tax depreciation 310,000 KW 35% (typical value for analysis but site speciﬁc) 3.4 cents/KW-hour. 0.0 cents/KWH sold to utility customers

Computations: Electrical power generated per year: 310,000 KW 0.35 24 hrs/day 365 days/year ¼ 950,463,000 KW-hours/year IRR (after taxes) ¼ 4.26%, (with no Federal Tax Credit)

Case-7: IRR with Tax Credit Capital Cost of Project Finance Structure Wind turbines (quantity) Annual easement cost Operation/Maintenance cost Project life Depreciation Power Capacity Capacity factor Selling price of energy Federal Tax Credit

$338,000,000 75% debt, 5.5% interest, 20 year, 25% equity 200 $4,000 per turbine per year $3,230,000 per year 20 years MACRS tax depreciation 310,000 KW 35% (typical value for analysis but site speciﬁc) 3.4 cents/KW-hour. 1.8 cents/KWH sold to utility customers

Computations: Electrical power generated per year: 310,000 KW 0.35 24 hrs/day 365 days/year ¼ 950,463,000 KW-hours/year IRR (after taxes) ¼ 27.1% (with the Federal Tax Credit of 1.8 cents/kWh)

Note: The Federal tax credit reduces the taxes paid by the utility company by $17,108,300 per year, i.e., 950,463,000 KW-hour/year $0.018/kWh. Discussion of Economics For the Large Wind Farm Cases Case-1A presented, in our opinion, represents a simple approximate method to generate a cash ﬂow analysis to obtain a break-even cost for wind-generated electric power for a large wind farm of 310 MW as about 3.4 cents/kWh. In our opinion, this represents an approximation of the best case. A capacity factor of 35% was used. Case-1B is similar to Case-1A except the bond payment was made in terms of 12 payments per year rather than the usual two payments per year. If a more detailed economic analysis is done with MACRS, the break-even price for wind energy becomes 3.4 cents/kWh as shown in Case-6. This just illustrates that the approximation method can be useful. For another site where the capacity factor is lower and if

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

267

a site-speciﬁc case has a capacity factor of 20%, the break-even cost increases and the value becomes about 5.7 cents/kWh by the approximation method of analysis as shown in Case-1C.8 The economic analysis of Case-6 yields a IRR (after taxes) of 4.26% when the selling price of wind farm generated energy is 3.4 cents/kWh with no federal tax credit. Case-7 was taken but with a federal tax credit of 1.8 cents/kWh of wind farm energy generated for customers with rest being the same as Case-6. This federal tax credit becomes annually, $17.1 million per year, i.e., 950,463,000 kWh/year $0.018/kWh. This Federal tax subsidy in effect increases the IRR (after taxes) to 27.1%. If for this same case, the debt was increased to 60% at 7.0% interest and with a 40% equity, the IRR (after taxes) would be reduced to 13.8% considering the Federal tax subsidy but with the Operation/Maintenance cost increased from $3.23 million to $5.00 million per year.9 Case-3 is the same as Case-2A except a federal tax credit of 1.8 cents/kWh and a state tax credit of 1.0 cents/kWh were applied. Case-3 has a break-even energy selling price of 1.068 cents/kWh with the federal tax credit and the state tax credit. Compare Case-3 with a break-even energy selling price of 1.068 cents/kWh with tax credits with the break-even energy selling price of 3.868 cents/kWh without tax credits. Case-4 is the same as Case-3 except an additional revenue source of green tags at 2.0 cents/kWh was considered. Note, the break-even selling price of energy is 0.932 cents/kWh or approximately zero cost of producing electricity from the wind farm. Case-5 was computed like Case-4 except the green tags were considered at 1.0 cents/kWh and the O&M costs at 1.00 cents/kWh. The result is a break-even selling price of energy of 0.2380 cents/kWh. These analyses illustrate the economics of wind farming and the importance of the wind farm capacity factor and also show that a tax subsidy can generate much cash to the bottom line of a utility in some speciﬁc and properly chosen wind farm site. Another factor to consider is a matter of “green credits.” Customers, if they wish, can be charged by the utility an additional cents/kWh to their existing rate for purchasing from this energy source (wind energy). This additional revenue can make a project more proﬁtable. Another factor of importance in the state of Iowa is the 1.0 cent/kWh state tax credit for wind energy. Also, there is a federal tax credit of 1.8 cents/kWh. Another credit for wind energy is “green power” or “green tags.” A credit for green tags has typically been about 2.0 cents/kWh and is considered a revenue source for a wind farm. Green power, whether it is a delivered product or a green tag, is that electricity generated by a source that has lower emissions and/or fewer environmental impacts reduces the need for electricity generated by a source that causes higher emissions and/or has greater environmental impacts. The reader should be aware that any economic analysis should be site/case speciﬁc and the economics presented in this article are presented only as information to the public. It should be remembered that the downside to wind farms for producing electricity is the unreliability of the wind. Thus, wind generation of electricity is just another

268

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.5

Eagles Flying Among Wind Turbines.11

form of energy source to generate power for use in the grid system along with the other sources of energy power plants listed previously such as natural gas, coal, hydro, and/or nuclear. Another concern by some environmentalists is the perceived damage associated with avian mortality, i.e., birds and fowl. Figure 12.5 shows eagles ﬂying among wind turbines.10 Figure 12.6 shows an eagle ﬂying among the wind turbine in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) as reported in a California Energy Commission study.11,12 As wind energy expands across the country/United States, the effects of commercial wind farms upon the bird population have been investigated. These inquiries into the effects upon the bird population have been driven by: (a) potential litigation from the death of a bird protected by the migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the Endangered

FIGURE 12.6

Golden Eagle at APWRA by Daniel Driscoll.12

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

269

Species act and (b) the effect of bird mortality upon the bird populations. Logically the facts should determine a proper course of action. Thus, the following discussion is devoted to the presentation of facts as published.13 Two major studies were conducted in the Tehachapi Pass and the San Gorgonio Pass located in the wind resource area (WRA). Results from these studies have deferred from results learned in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Results indicated that some birds collide with wind turbines and raptors appear to have a higher degree of risk for collision. However, the number of collisions is small in the Tehachapi Pass and San Gorgonio Pass WRA than in the Altamont Pass WRA. A study of the Ponnequin Wind Farm in Colorado was conducted by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to complement the study done by the locally investor-owned utility, Xcel Energy, preconstruction site study. About 23 avian species were identiﬁed on the site and seven raptor species were discovered: Northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, Rough-legged hawk, Ferruginous hawk, Golden eagle, American kestrel, and Prairie falcon. No raptor carcasses were found in the one-year study period.13 For Green Mountain Power’s wind turbine development in Searsburg, Vermont, a study was conducted on avian behavior such as night migration of songbirds, daytime migration of hawks, and breeding. This study was conducted both during preconstruction and postconstruction periods. The study focused on the impacts of wind turbines on migrating birds. During the study period, no avian fatalities were found.13 A study was conducted prior to the construction of the Conservation and Renewable Energy System’s (CARES) wind facility for Goldendale, Washington. The purpose of the study was to record the patterns of WRA use by birds before and after the wind facility construction. Few bird fatalities were found.13 A long-term ﬁeld study was conducted on the ecology of Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the vicinity of the APWRA. The facility lies east of San Francisco Bay in California and consists of about 6,500 wind turbines of 190 km2 of rolling grassland as pictured in Figs. 12.6 and 12.7.11 In the WRA, to estimate survival rates, 179 eagles were tagged with radio transmitters equipped with mortality sensors to function for 4 years. The tagged sample included 79 juveniles, 45 subadults, 17 ﬂoaters (nonterritorial adults), and 38 breeders. Juveniles are eagles less than 1 year old. Subadults are one, two, and three years of age. Floaters are adults without breeding territories. Floaters are an indication that all of the habitat suitable for breeding is occupied by territorial pairs. For a ﬂoater to mate, it must wait for a vacancy or evict a territorial owner. As stated, the population grows until all serviceable breeding locations are occupied by pairs, at which point ﬂoaters begin to accumulate.” “Because of environmental restrictions to the size of the breeding segment, there is a resulting stabilization in ﬂoater numbers and overall populations size, a phenomenon know as Moffat’s equilibrium.”11 Of 61 recorded deaths of radio-tagged eagles during the 4-year investigation, 54% resulted from electrical generation or transmission. Of these deaths, 38% were caused by wind turbine blade strikes and 16% were by electrocutions on distribution lines. Of the turbine strike fatalities, 19 were subadults, 3 were ﬂoaters, and only 1 was

270

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.7

Wind Farm in The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA).11

a breeder. Among the species of raptors killed at Altamont Pass, the most likely to be impacted was the Golden eagle. The breeding and recruitment rates of Golden eagles are naturally slow, which makes for greater susceptibility to population decline. However, ﬂoaters (nonterritorial adults) have a tendency to replenish those lost. As stated, “ﬂoaters safeguard the breeding segment by quickly replacing breeders that have died.”11,14 From the studies conducted and summarized in the NREL report, data suggest that the most signiﬁcant U.S. avian and wind turbine interaction problem occurs in the APWRA. With the studies conducted to date, it has been learned over the past several years that avian issues should not be a concern for wind farm development because the potential problems can be addressed. The avian and wind turbine problems can be identiﬁed and dealt with for the particular wind farm site. Also, it is important to consider the number of bird fatalities in proportion to the population size. For example, the absolute number of bird fatalities in a wind farm site may not be important compared to the local population in the area. As stated, “for example, if 10 birds of a particular species are killed, it is important to know if this is out of a local population of 30 or 3000. The overall impact of 10 birds being killed will be different depending on the size of the local population.”13 Economy of Scale Associated With Wind Farms Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical power, which then is converted to electricity by a generator. Typically, large wind turbines are classiﬁed as having 100 kilowatts (kW) to megawatts (MW) of power. Small wind turbines usually are listed as below 100 kW in size.10 Whether considering large or small turbines and/or combination of many turbines as a small or large wind farm, economy of scale is associated with the size of the facility. The economy of scale becomes apparent by review of Table 12.1 developed from commercial wind farms.

BIG WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

TABLE 12.1

271

Commercial Wind Farms, Enron Wind, California, Year 2001

Item Installed capacity (MW) Production (MWh) Capacity factor, listed (%) Capacity factor, computed (%) Operating expenses (cents/kWh) Total expense (cents/kWh) (Operating expense þ D&A)

Cabazon Site

Sky River Site

Victory Garden Site

251

39.75 107,000 33.3 30.7 3.3327 5.2206

77 200,000 32.5 29.7 1.8060 5.6375

22 50,000 27.9 25.9 1.8780 4.5940

18.4 38,000 22.8 23.6 3.3763 6.1026

Operating & Maintenance (O&M) Cost, (Cents/kWh)

Economy of scale is noticeable in Table 12.1 but discrepancies are apparent. Site location and many other capital and ﬁnancial factors could inﬂuence the data present in the table. However, from the data in Table 12.1 and other known data, a ﬁgure can be constructed of estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with various wind farm capacities. Figure 12.8 was constructed accordingly as an estimate for the variation of O&M with wind Farm capacity. Figure 12.9 shows installed capacity (MW) and wind farm production (MWh/year).

Wind Farm Installed Capacity (MW) and Operation & Maintenance Cost (Cents/kWh) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

0

50

100 150 200 250 Wind Farm, Installed Capacity (MW)

300

350

Dr. Gary C. Young, Ph.D., P.E. B-T-E, Inc. WindFarmData,prostat,07 01 2009.pdw

FIGURE 12.8

Wind Farm Installed Capacity (MW) and O&M Cost (cents/kWh).

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

272

Wind Farm Installed Capacity (MW) and Production (MW hours/year) (Capacity Factor ranged between 22.8% to 35%) 350

Installed Capacity, MW

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000

Wind Farm Production, MWh/year Dr. Gary C. Young, Ph.D., P.E. B-T-E, Inc. WindCFvsCentspkWh,07 01 2009.pdw

FIGURE 12.9

Wind Farm Production and Installed Capacity.

SMALL WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY Small wind turbines usually are listed as below 100 kW in size. A typical small wind turbine is a turbine of 10 kW capacity. The amount of this turbine capacity that is converted into energy is called the “capacity factor.” The capacity factor is deﬁned as the amount of system capacity converted to energy for the time period under consideration. Depending upon a speciﬁc site location, the capacity factor can typically vary between 20% and 35%. For example, a 10 kW wind turbine with a 35% capacity factor will convert 3.5 kW to energy or 30,660 kWh/year, i.e., 10 kW 0.35 24 h/day 365 days/year. A small wind turbine is shown in Fig. 12.10.5,15 When considering the viability of a wind farm or turbine(s), large wind farms are more economical than small wind farms. This economic fact is typical of economics and is referred to as the “economy of scale.” The economics of small wind farm systems will be shown as less economically attractive than the previously presented economics of large wind farm systems.5 Economic Cases 1S, 2S, 3S, 4S, 5S, 6S, 7S, and 8S for small wind farm systems will be presented with input ﬁnancial parameters and output computations. After listing these economic cases, a discussion of each case will follow.

SMALL WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

FIGURE 12.10

Small Wind Turbine.15

Case-1S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 0.0% Investment—Grant $45,039.54 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price 15.7000 cents/kWh of energy O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine

273

274

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

OUTPUT Production Revenues: Energy Sales

30,660 kWh/year $4,813.62/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$4,813.62/year

¼?

$3,741.12/year 12.2029 cents/kWh $1,073.10/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $4,814.22/year

Case-2S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 0.0% Investment—Grant $45,039.54 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 23.2% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy: 21.9000 cents/kWh O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine

OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

20,323 kWh/year $4,450.78/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$4,450.78/year

¼?

$3,741.12/year 18.4081 cents/kWh $711.31/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $4,452.43/year

SMALL WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

275

Case-3S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant: $22,519.77 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy: 9.6000 cents/kWh O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

30,660 kWh/year $2,943.36/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$2,943.36/year

¼?

Case-4S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant: $22,519.77 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 0.00 cents/kWh Green tags 0.00 cents/kWh

$1,870.56/year 6.1010 cents/kWh $1,073.10/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $2,943.66/year

276

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

**Selling price of energy O&M Number of turbines Easement cost OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

7.8000 cents/kWh 3.500 cents/kWh 1 $0.00/year/turbine

30,660 kWh/year $2,391.48/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$551.88/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s)

$2,943.36/year

¼?

$1,870.56/year 6.1010 cents/kWh $1,073.10/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $2,943.66/year

Case-5S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant $22,519.77 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 2.00 cents/kWh **Selling price 4.8000 cents/kWh of energy O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

30,660 kWh/year $1,471.68/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$551.88/year

O&M

State tax credit

$306.60/year

Easement cost

$1,870.56/year 6.1010 cents/kWh $1,073.10/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

SMALL WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

Green tags

$613.20/year

Total Revenue(s)

$2,943.36/year

¼?

277

Total Expenditure(s) $2,943.66/year

Case-6S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 10.00 kW Capital Investment $45,039.54 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant $22,519.77 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 23.2% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 2.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 7.9050 cents/kWh O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

20,323 kWh/year $1,606.55/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$365.82/year

O&M

State tax credit

$203.23/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$406.46/year

Total Revenue(s) $2,582.06/year

¼?

Case-7S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 5.00 kW Capital Investment $29,715.01 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant $14,857.51 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2

$1,870.56/year 9.2041 cents/kWh $711.31/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $2,581.87/year

278

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Capacity factor Federal tax credit State tax credit Green tags **Selling price of energy O&M Number of turbines Easement cost OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales

35.0% 0.00 cents/kWh 0.00 cents/kWh 0.00 cents/kWh 11.5500 cents/kWh 3.500 cents/kWh 1 $0.00/year/turbine

15,330 kWh/year $1,770.62/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

Federal tax credit

$0.00/year

O&M

State tax credit

$0.00/year

Easement cost

Green tags

$0.00/year

Total Revenue(s) $1,770.62/year

¼?

$1,234.11/year 8.0503 cents/kWh $536.55/year 3.500 cents/kWh $0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

Total Expenditure(s) $1,770.66/year

Case-8S: Simple Cash Flow Analysis Small Wind Farm Financial Analysis Before Taxes: INPUT: Financial Parameters Installed Capacity 5.00 kW Capital Investment $29,715.01 Grant, % of Investment 50.0% Investment—Grant: $14,857.51 Financing period 20 years Bond interest rate 5.50% Payments per year 2 Capacity factor 35.0% Federal tax credit 1.80 cents/kWh State tax credit 1.00 cents/kWh Green tags 2.00 cents/kWh **Selling price of energy 6.7500 cents/kWh O&M 3.500 cents/kWh Number of turbines 1 Easement cost $0.00/year/turbine OUTPUT: Production Revenues: Energy Sales Federal tax credit

15,330 kWh/year $1,034.78/year

Expenditures: Bond payment

$275.94/year

O&M

$1,234.11/year 8.0503 cents/kWh $536.55/year 3.500 cents/kWh

SMALL WIND SYSTEMS TO ENERGY

State tax credit

$153.30/year

Green tags

$306.60/year

Total Revenue(s) $1,770.62/year

279

Easement cost

$0.00/year 0.000 cents/kWh

¼?

Total Expenditure(s) $1,770.66/year

Discussion of Economics for the Small Wind Farm Cases In Case-1S, a small wind turbine with a capacity of 10 kW is installed at a capital investment of $45,039. A bond is used to ﬁnance the project at 5.50% interest for a period of 20 years by making two payments per year. The O&M costs are 3.50 cents/kWh of energy production. With a capacity factor of 35%, the energy production becomes 30,660 kWh/year. The expenditures become: bond payment— $3,741.12/year and O&M—$1,073.10/year. By trial and error on the selling price of energy, 15.70 cents/kWh is break-even selling price whereby revenues equal expenditures. Note, “no” federal tax credit, state tax credit, and green tags were used as revenue. For Case-2S, a small 10 kW wind turbine was installed with all the same parameters as Case-1S, except the capacity factor is 23.2%. A break-even selling price of energy was computed to be 21.90 cents/kWh. Note, the break-even selling price was 15.70 cents/kWh at a capacity factor of 35% but at a capacity factor of 23.2%, the break-even selling price became 21.90%. The capacity factor is a very important economic parameter. In Case-3S, a small 10 kW wind turbine was installed with all the same parameters as Case-1S, except a grant was obtained for 50% of the capital investment. Thus, only $22,519.77 needed to be ﬁnanced. The break-even selling price was then computed to be 9.60 cents/kWh. With a small wind turbine, one can conclude the importance of grants to help ﬁnance a project. Case-4S, a wind turbine with 10 kW capacity was installed with the same parameters as in Case-3S, except a Federal tax credit of 1.80 cents/kWh for energy production was obtained and considered as revenue. The break-even selling price of energy was then 7.80 cents/kWh. This case illustrates the importance of tax credits. In Case-5S, a 10 kW wind turbine was installed like in Case-4S, except an additional state tax credit of 1.00 cents/kWh and a 2.00 cents/kWh credit for green tags were obtained. The break-even price was determined to be 4.80 cents/kWh. This case shows the importance of having federal tax credit, state tax credit, and green tags. For Case-6S, a 10 kW wind turbine project was the same as Case-5S, except the capacity factor was 23.2%. The result was a break-even selling price of energy of 7.905 cents/kWh. Note how the capacity factor at 35% equates to a break-even price of 4.80 cents/kWh in the previous case but when the capacity factor is reduced to 23.2%, the break-even price increases to 7.905 cents/kWh. Once again, capacity factor is an importance economic parameter. Case-7S installed a 5 kW wind turbine but with all other economic parameters being the same as Case-3S. The break-even energy price is 11.550 cents/kWh. Note,

280

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

TABLE 12.2 Systems

Break-Even Selling Prices of Energy for Large and Small Wind

Case Number

System Size (kW)

1-S 2-S 3-S 4-S 5-S 6-S 7-S 8-S 3

10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 310 MW

Federal State Tax Green Break-Even Capacity Tax Credit Credit Tags Grant Energy Factor (%) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (¢/kWh) (%) Price (¢/kWh) 35 23.2 35 35 35 23.2 35 35 35

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.00 1.08 1.80

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00

0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0

15.70 21.90 9.600 7.800 4.800 7.905 11.55 6.750 1.068

Case-3S had a break-even selling price of 9.600 cents/kWh when a 10 kW wind turbine was installed. This case just illustrates the importance of economy of scale even for small wind turbines and should be taken into consideration. In Case-8S, a 5 kW wind turbine was installed with all parameters the same as Case-7S, except these additional revenue sources were considered: Federal tax credit of 1.80 cents/kWh, state tax credit of 1.00 cents/kWh, and green tags of 2.00 cents/kWh. The break-even selling price of energy is therefore 6.75 cents/kWh. A summary of small wind turbine cases is shown in Table 12.2 for comparing the small wind systems previously discussed with one case from a large wind system. Table 12.2 clearly illustrates the importance of economy of scale when considering a business plan for a wind energy system. The reader should be aware that any economic analysis should be site/case speciﬁc and the economics presented in this article are presented only as information to the public. Also, it should be remembered that the downside to wind farms for producing electricity is the unreliability of the wind. Thus, wind generation of electricity is just one other form of energy source to generate power for use in the grid system along with the other sources of energy power plants listed previously such as natural gas, coal, hydro, and/or nuclear.

HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY: INTRODUCTION Most of the energy in the United States is produced by fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. However, hydroelectricity is important to the United States because it represents 7.1% of the total power produced. As shown in Fig. 12.11, various sources contribute to the electricity production in the United States. For example, as a percentage contribution of the total electricity produced in the United States for year 2006, coal is 48.9%, nuclear is 19.3%, natural Gas is 20.0%, and hydroelectric is 7.1%.16

HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY: INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 12.11

281

Sources of Electricity in the USA, 2006.16

Hydroelectric power is produced in theory by having a dam on a river with a large drop in elevation. Water is stored behind the dam and then ﬂows at the base of the dam through a conduit called the penstock into the turbine. Blades in the turbine are turned by the water and rotate a shaft called the generator shaft. The generator shaft turns a generator that produces the electricity. The electricity is then sent to the power transmission cables into the electrical grid system that supplies the customers. The waster exits the turbine and returns through a conduit called the tailrace into the river past the dam. The rather simple process is illustrated in Fig. 12.12. A diagram of a hydroelectric generator is shown in Fig. 12.13 as supplied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The hydraulic turbine converts the energy of the ﬂowing water into mechanical energy. The hydroelectric generator converts the mechanical energy into electricity. In summary, a hydroelectric plant uses falling water to turn a turbine and resultant generator to produce electricity, i.e., hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric power and system have several advantages: . . . . . . .

Fuel is not burned, thereby minimizing pollution. Water used in the hydroelectric plant is provided free by nature. Hydroelectric power plays a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Hydropower has low operation and maintenance costs. Hydroelectric power is a proven technology over time and is reliable. Hydroelectric energy is renewable because rainfall renews the water in the dam reservoir. A related positive feature of the power plant and dam is the scenic and recreation area provided by the reservoir for business and tourism activity in the local area.

282

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.12

FIGURE 12.13

Hydroelectric Power Generation.17

Hydroelectric Turbine and Generator.18

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: NASHUA, IOWA

. . . .

283

It contributes to the storage of drinking water and water for irrigation. The vulnerability to ﬂoods and droughts is reduced by the storage of water in the reservoir. Electric rates can be stabilized and be more reliable. Hydroelectric power plants do not release pollutants into the air. Hydro energy can be a substitute for generation of energy by fossil fuel power plants.

Hydroelectric power and system have some disadvantages: . . . . . . .

It has high investment costs. It depends upon rain, precipitation. It causes some inundation of the land and wildlife habitat. A modiﬁcation of the ﬁsh habitat occurs in some cases. Some movement of ﬁsh is restricted. In some cases, changes in reservoir and stream water quality may be affected. Local populations may be displaced in some cases.

Hydroelectric power is site speciﬁc because it requires large amounts of water and land where a dam can be built. Many of the best locations for hydroelectric power plants have been taken already in the United States. Thus, the trend in the future is likely to be with small-scale hydroelectric plants that can generate electricity for a local community. Small-scale hydroelectric plants with or without reservoirs are typically run-of-the-river plants. A run-of-the-river operation uses daily river ﬂows to produce the hydroelectric energy, thereby reducing large ﬂuctuations in the reservoir from accumulation and depletions. Consequently, a hydroelectric plant with no reservoir capacity is called a run-of-the-river plant. Small-scale or low-head hydroelectric power plants are deﬁned as plants having an electrical capacity of less than 15 MW (small scale) or dam height of less than 20 meters (low head). 20 meters is 65.6 feet. Small hydro plants have also been reported as those plants producing up to 10 MW or projects up to 30 MW. The major advantage of a hydroelectric plant is elimination of the cost of fuel. Also, hydroelectric plants tend to have a very long economic life such as up to 50 years.19 The following represents a preliminary economic assessment of several smallscale and low-head hydroelectric power plant projects, i.e., with potential in the state of Iowa.

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: NASHUA, IOWA The economics of a low-head dam and hydroenergy at Nashua Mill Dam, Nashua, Iowa is discussed as a source of green energy and how a low-head dam can improve a city utility’s bottom line. Many communities have become more interested in a source of additional revenue during economic downturns where tax revenues have

284

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

been reduced substantially. Since many rural areas have existing low-head dams constructed in the early 1900s, a logical approach to increasing revenues is to refurbish these old assets by utilization of existing but unused powerhouse for the generation of hydroelectric energy for use by the municipal government. Any excess energy from the hydroelectric power plant would be sold to the existing grid system currently supplying power to the surrounding area. With today’s high cost of electricity, a small community could ﬁnd this hydroelectric generation of power attractive. Thus, some interest has been generated recently from citizens, environmental groups, politicians, and commercial companies.Low-head dams, which have a potential of generating additional revenues to be used for revitalizing a declining rural community, have been of particular interest to civic authorities of cities. Finally, a Federal incentive payment of 1.8 ¢/kWh is available for the generation of renewable energy and interest-free Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) as a result of the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, the Federal government enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided a grant for 30% of the project cost of a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. These energy bills have made many past potential hydro sites currently economically attractive.20,21 With this interest, a sense of direction is needed to bring a reality check as to the economic potential of existing low-head dams for generation of hydroelectric energy. Much useful information can be obtained in publications on low-head dams. Small-scale or low-head power plants have been deﬁned as having an electrical capacity of less than 15 MW (small-scale) or a dam height of less than 65.6 feet (lowhead). With fuel costs escalating over the years, economic conditions are beginning to favor a return to small-scale and low-head hydroelectric power generation. This is particularly true for municipalities with existing low-head dams, which typically had abandoned hydropower generation around the 1950s or so.22,19 Consider the following as typical of a low-head hydroelectric power generation facility. A picture of such a typical existing low-head dam facility with potential is shown in Fig. 12.14 and is the Nashua Mill Dam and Powerhouse, Nashua, Iowa. Such an existing low-head dam facility was investigated as to its economic feasibility for hydroelectric generation of power for the local city government use. The $2.675 million project will consist of one turbine and have a capacity of 600 kW. This capital cost includes generating equipment, controls, switchgear, transmission line, transformers, and for an upgrade to the existing dam. Design ﬂow is 416 cfs, and design head is 17 feet. This run-of-the-river facility would exist on the Cedar River in Iowa and would generate an average of about 3,966,700 kWh/year of electricity based upon a 20-year ﬂow curve. Maintenance and operating (M&O) costs were considered to be $9,917 per year plus a capital budget reserve of $12,500 per year, since it was considered to be integrated with the existing city municipal operations. The combined M&O would total 0.565 cents/kWh.23 Current purchase price of electricity for the municipal government use has an average value of 5.940 cents per kWh. Capital is considered at a cost of 5.75% interest, including the cost of ﬁnancing and insurance for 20 years. This amounts to $226,800 per year for the capital cost of the project. Revenues and expenditures were escalated

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: NASHUA, IOWA

FIGURE 12.14

285

Nashua Mill Dam and Powerhouse, Nashua, Iowa.

at 2% per year. The capital reserve of $12,500 per year was included at a ﬁxed value, since it is considered to be in an interest-bearing account. Discussion of the Nashua Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Case #1: Nashua Hydroelectric Facility A revenue to the hydrofacility results from the city purchasing the electrical energy at 5.940 cents/kWh, which is the current purchase price of energy from the utility company. Additional cash ﬂow results when excess energy is generated beyond the needs of the local city government and sold to the existing utility company at 4.500 cents/kWh. A federal incentive payment provides for a cash ﬂow of 1.8 ¢/kWh for renewable energy generated by the hydrofacility. Green tags for the generation of green energy are considered to have a market value of 1.0 ¢/kWh. As a result of these revenues, a positive cash ﬂow begins at year 1 for $47,142 and increases to $81,356 at year 10. Federal incentive payments from the 2005 Energy Bill end at year 10. Even with no Federal incentive payments for generation of renewable energy, the project continues to generate positive cash ﬂows. After year 20, the bond has been paid so as to generate an additional positive cash ﬂow of $226,800.00 per year, from paying off the bond, for the life of the physical plant, which is typically for another 30 years. Details are presented in the Table 12.3. When ﬁnancing over 30 years, the positive cash ﬂow amounts to about twice the amount for 20 years but much more interest is paid out for the life of the project. For example, the ﬁnancing expenditures (bond þ insurance þ interest) for 30 years would be $187,460 per year compared with the previous 20 years ﬁnancing amount of $226,800 per year. Using the 30-year amortization, positive cash ﬂow to the city for these years would be: year 1, $86,482; year 5, $100,938; year 10, $120,696. In comparison, the 20-year amortization for these years is: year 1, $47,142; year 5,

286 Nashua Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Nashua, Iowa

$28,019.16 $0.00 $0.00 $157,272.84 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $296,358.34

$28,579.54 $0.00 $0.00 $160,418.30 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $300,064.18

6.059 0.000 0.000 4.590 1.000 1.800

5.940 0.000 0.000 4.500 1.000 1.800

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 6.180 0.000 0.000 4.682 1.000 1.800

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$29,151.13 $0.00 $0.00 $163,626.66 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $303,844.14

% increase per year

kWh/year

2.00

3,966,655

Fed Incentive revenue

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

471,703 0 0 3,494,952 3,966,655

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.565 cents per kW h of production

PRELIMINARY

$29,734.16 $0.00 $0.00 $166,899.20 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $307,699.69

6.304 0.000 0.000 4.775 1.000 1.800

4 5.750

$30,328.84 $0.00 $0.00 $170,237.18 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $311,632.36

6.430 0.000 0.000 4.871 1.000 1.800

5 5.750

$30,935.42 $0.00 $0.00 $173,641.92 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $315,643.68

6.558 0.000 0.000 4.968 1.000 1.800

6 5.750

$31,554.13 $0.00 $0.00 $177,114.76 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $319,735.23

6.689 0.000 0.000 5.068 1.000 1.800

7 5.750

$32,185.21 $0.00 $0.00 $180,657.06 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $323,908.60

6.823 0.000 0.000 5.169 1.000 1.800

8 5.750

$32,828.91 $0.00 $0.00 $184,270.20 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $328,165.45

6.960 0.000 0.000 5.272 1.000 1.800

9 5.750

$33,485.49 $0.00 $0.00 $187,955.60 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $332,507.43

7.099 0.000 0.000 5.378 1.000 1.800

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnomic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$28,019.16 $0.00 0.0000 4.5000 1.0000

Capital Investment $2,675,000.00 Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.250 cents per kW h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,966,655 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Nashua Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 1 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.3 Nashua Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #1)

287

$226,800.16 $12,088.33 $12,500.00 $251,388.49

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

(Revenues - Expenditures) $14,147.98 Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $982,485.74 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$34,155.20 $0.00 $0.00 $191,714.71 $39,666.55 $0.00 $265,536.46

$226,800.16 $12,576.69 $12,500.00 $251,876.85

$35,535.07 $0.00 $0.00 $199,459.99 $39,666.55 $0.00 $274,661.61

7.533 0.000 0.000 5.707 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$54,226.71

$226,800.16 $10,317.27 $12,500.00 $249,617.43

$18,423.61 $22,784.75 20 year, analysis $49,124.29 /year

$226,800.16 $12,330.09 $12,500.00 $251,630.25

$34,838.30 $0.00 $0.00 $195,549.01 $39,666.55 $0.00 $270,053.86

7.386 0.000 0.000 5.595 1.000 0.000

7.241 0.000 0.000 5.485 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

$50,649.05

$226,800.16 $10,114.97 $12,500.00 $249,415.13

11 5.750

$47,141.54

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$226,800.16 $9,916.64 $12,500.00 $249,216.80

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

$27,233.12

$226,800.16 $12,828.23 $12,500.00 $252,128.39

$36,245.77 $0.00 $0.00 $203,449.19 $39,666.55 $0.00 $279,361.51

7.684 0.000 0.000 5.821 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$57,875.92

$226,800.16 $10,523.62 $12,500.00 $249,823.78

$31,770.46

$226,800.16 $13,084.79 $12,500.00 $252,384.95

$36,970.69 $0.00 $0.00 $207,518.17 $39,666.55 $0.00 $284,155.41

7.838 0.000 0.000 5.938 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$61,598.11

$226,800.16 $10,734.09 $12,500.00 $250,034.25

$36,398.54

$226,800.16 $13,346.49 $12,500.00 $252,646.65

$37,710.10 $0.00 $0.00 $211,668.54 $39,666.55 $0.00 $289,045.19

7.994 0.000 0.000 6.056 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$65,394.75

$226,800.16 $10,948.77 $12,500.00 $250,248.93

$41,119.18

$226,800.16 $13,613.42 $12,500.00 $252,913.58

$38,464.30 $0.00 $0.00 $215,901.91 $39,666.55 $0.00 $294,032.76

8.154 0.000 0.000 6.178 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$69,267.32

$226,800.16 $11,167.74 $12,500.00 $250,467.90

$45,934.24

$226,800.16 $13,885.69 $12,500.00 $253,185.85

$39,233.59 $0.00 $0.00 $220,219.94 $39,666.55 $0.00 $299,120.08

8.317 0.000 0.000 6.301 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$73,217.35

$226,800.16 $11,391.10 $12,500.00 $250,691.26

$50,845.59

$226,800.16 $14,163.40 $12,500.00 $253,463.56

$40,018.26 $0.00 $0.00 $224,624.34 $39,666.55 $0.00 $304,309.15

8.484 0.000 0.000 6.427 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$77,246.37

$226,800.16 $11,618.92 $12,500.00 $250,919.08

$55,855.18

$226,800.16 $14,446.67 $12,500.00 $253,746.83

$40,818.63 $0.00 $0.00 $229,116.83 $39,666.55 $0.00 $309,602.01

8.653 0.000 0.000 6.556 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$81,355.97

$226,800.16 $11,851.30 $12,500.00 $251,151.46

288

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

$61,598; year 10, $81,356. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) in 20 years would be $49,124/year, before taxes. Financial considerations discussed previously have been done using capital costs for “new” equipment. If “used” equipment is considered, an estimated capital savings is initially realized and the corresponding cash ﬂow with 20-year amortization for year 1 is $86,482. The cash ﬂow for year 1 with “new” equipment was $47,142. Also, the capital investment was reduced by 17.4% by using used equipment. As a word of caution, the “used” equipment case may not realize the full economics due to possible lower energy generation efﬁciencies, reduced on-stream time, and higher O&M costs. For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #1, economic details are presented in Table 12.3 with annual cash ﬂows: a Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production in the ﬁrst 10 years and green tags at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) over 20 years would be $49,124/year, before taxes. Case #2: Nashua Hydroelectric Facility For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #2, economic details are presented in Table 12.4 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #2 is similar to Case #1, but “no” Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production was considered. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government grant of 30% of the project cost as provided by the enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cost was reduced from $2,675,000.00 to $1,872,500.00 as presented in Table 12.4.20 For Case #2, positive cash ﬂows for the 20-year ﬁnancing in these years are: year 1, $43,781; year 5, $58,238; year 10, $77,996. The average annual net revenue (revenue– expenditures) over 20 years would be $81,464/year, before taxes. One key point in this economic analysis is that the 30% grant is eligible for the private sector. Case #3: Nashua Hydroelectric Facility For a 20 year ﬁnancing, Case #3, economic details are presented in Table 12.5 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #3 is similar to Case #1 with Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production in the ﬁrst 10 years. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government program of CREBs provision for ﬁnancing the project cost as provided Energy Policy Act of 2005.20 CREBs provide for interest-free “zero percent interest” ﬁnancing of the project for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cash ﬂows are presented in Table 12.5. For Case #3, positive cash ﬂows for the 20-year ﬁnancing in these years are: year 1, $140,192; year 5, $154,648; year 10, $174,406. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) over 20 years would be $142,174/year, with no taxes for a local community facility. The Nashua economic cases illustrate the importance of selling “excess” power from the hydrofacility to a grid system. The excess power is the amount of electrical energy produced from the hydrofacility above the city’s usage per year. If this excess power is sold at 4.500 cents/kWh to the grid system, cash ﬂow to the city and hydrofacility is attractive. For some areas of the country, utilities may be hard-nosed and resist fair and equitable negotiations. When this occurs, a rural community could

289

Nashua Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Nashua, Iowa

$28,019.16 $0.00 $0.00 $157,272.84 $39,666.55 $0.00 $224,958.55

$28,579.54 $0.00 $0.00 $160,418.30 $39,666.55 $0.00 $228,664.39

6.059 0.000 0.000 4.590 1.000 0.000

5.940 0.000 0.000 4.500 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 6.180 0.000 0.000 4.682 1.000 0.000

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$29,151.13 $0.00 $0.00 $163,626.66 $39,666.55 $0.00 $232,444.35

% increase per year

kWh/year

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

2.00

3,966,655

471,703 0 0 3,494,952 3,966,655

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Fed Incentive revenue

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.565 cents per kW h of production

PRELIMINARY

$29,734.16 $0.00 $0.00 $166,899.20 $39,666.55 $0.00 $236,299.90

6.304 0.000 0.000 4.775 1.000 0.000

4 5.750

$30,328.84 $0.00 $0.00 $170,237.18 $39,666.55 $0.00 $240,232.57

6.430 0.000 0.000 4.871 1.000 0.000

5 5.750

$30,935.42 $0.00 $0.00 $173,641.92 $39,666.55 $0.00 $244,243.89

6.558 0.000 0.000 4.968 1.000 0.000

6 5.750

$31,554.13 $0.00 $0.00 $177,114.76 $39,666.55 $0.00 $248,335.44

6.689 0.000 0.000 5.068 1.000 0.000

7 5.750

$32,185.21 $0.00 $0.00 $180,657.06 $39,666.55 $0.00 $252,508.81

6.823 0.000 0.000 5.169 1.000 0.000

8 5.750

$32,828.91 $0.00 $0.00 $184,270.20 $39,666.55 $0.00 $256,765.66

6.960 0.000 0.000 5.272 1.000 0.000

9 5.750

(continued)

$33,485.49 $0.00 $0.00 $187,955.60 $39,666.55 $0.00 $261,107.64

7.099 0.000 0.000 5.378 1.000 0.000

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnomic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$28,019.16 $0.00 0.0000 4.5000 1.0000

Capital Investment $1,872,500.00 Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.250 cents per kW h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,966,655 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Nashua Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 2 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.4 Nashua Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #2)

290

$158,760.11 $12,088.33 $12,500.00 $183,348.44

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

(Revenues - Expenditures) $82,188.03 Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $1,629,288.84 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$34,155.20 $0.00 $0.00 $191,714.71 $39,666.55 $0.00 $265,536.46

$158,760.11 $12,576.69 $12,500.00 $183,836.80

$35,535.07 $0.00 $0.00 $199,459.99 $39,666.55 $0.00 $274,661.61

7.533 0.000 0.000 5.707 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$50,866.97

$158,760.11 $10,317.27 $12,500.00 $181,577.38

$86,463.66 $90,824.80 20 year, analysis $81,464.44 /year

$158,760.11 $12,330.09 $12,500.00 $183,590.20

$34,838.30 $0.00 $0.00 $195,549.01 $39,666.55 $0.00 $270,053.86

7.386 0.000 0.000 5.595 1.000 0.000

7.241 0.000 0.000 5.485 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

$47,289.31

$158,760.11 $10,114.97 $12,500.00 $181,375.08

11 5.750

$43,781.80

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$158,760.11 $9,916.64 $12,500.00 $181,176.75

(Continued)

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

TABLE 12.4

$95,273.17

$158,760.11 $12,828.23 $12,500.00 $184,088.34

$36,245.77 $0.00 $0.00 $203,449.19 $39,666.55 $0.00 $279,361.51

7.684 0.000 0.000 5.821 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$54,516.18

$158,760.11 $10,523.62 $12,500.00 $181,783.73

$99,810.51

$158,760.11 $13,084.79 $12,500.00 $184,344.90

$36,970.69 $0.00 $0.00 $207,518.17 $39,666.55 $0.00 $284,155.41

7.838 0.000 0.000 5.938 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$58,238.37

$158,760.11 $10,734.09 $12,500.00 $181,994.20

$104,438.59

$158,760.11 $13,346.49 $12,500.00 $184,606.60

$37,710.10 $0.00 $0.00 $211,668.54 $39,666.55 $0.00 $289,045.19

7.994 0.000 0.000 6.056 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$62,035.01

$158,760.11 $10,948.77 $12,500.00 $182,208.88

$109,159.23

$158,760.11 $13,613.42 $12,500.00 $184,873.53

$38,464.30 $0.00 $0.00 $215,901.91 $39,666.55 $0.00 $294,032.76

8.154 0.000 0.000 6.178 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$65,907.58

$158,760.11 $11,167.74 $12,500.00 $182,427.85

$113,974.29

$158,760.11 $13,885.69 $12,500.00 $185,145.80

$39,233.59 $0.00 $0.00 $220,219.94 $39,666.55 $0.00 $299,120.08

8.317 0.000 0.000 6.301 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$69,857.61

$158,760.11 $11,391.10 $12,500.00 $182,651.21

$118,885.64

$158,760.11 $14,163.40 $12,500.00 $185,423.51

$40,018.26 $0.00 $0.00 $224,624.34 $39,666.55 $0.00 $304,309.15

8.484 0.000 0.000 6.427 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$73,886.63

$158,760.11 $11,618.92 $12,500.00 $182,879.03

$123,895.23

$158,760.11 $14,446.67 $12,500.00 $185,706.78

$40,818.63 $0.00 $0.00 $229,116.83 $39,666.55 $0.00 $309,602.01

8.653 0.000 0.000 6.556 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$77,996.23

$158,760.11 $11,851.30 $12,500.00 $183,111.41

291

Nashua Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Nashua, Iowa

$28,019.16 $0.00 $0.00 $157,272.84 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $296,358.34

$28,579.54 $0.00 $0.00 $160,418.30 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $300,064.18

6.059 0.000 0.000 4.590 1.000 1.800

5.940 0.000 0.000 4.500 1.000 1.800

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 6.180 0.000 0.000 4.682 1.000 1.800

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$29,151.13 $0.00 $0.00 $163,626.66 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $303,844.14

% increase per year

kWh/year

3,966,655

2.00

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

471,703 0 0 3,494,952 3,966,655

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Fed Incentive revenue

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.565 cents per k W h of production

PRELIMINARY

$29,734.16 $0.00 $0.00 $166,899.20 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $307,699.69

6.304 0.000 0.000 4.775 1.000 1.800

4 5.750

$30,328.84 $0.00 $0.00 $170,237.18 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $311,632.36

6.430 0.000 0.000 4.871 1.000 1.800

5 5.750

$30,935.42 $0.00 $0.00 $173,641.92 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $315,643.68

6.558 0.000 0.000 4.968 1.000 1.800

6 5.750

$31,554.13 $0.00 $0.00 $177,114.76 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $319,735.23

6.689 0.000 0.000 5.068 1.000 1.800

7 5.750

$32,185.21 $0.00 $0.00 $180,657.06 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $323,908.60

6.823 0.000 0.000 5.169 1.000 1.800

8 5.750

$32,828.91 $0.00 $0.00 $184,270.20 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $328,165.45

6.960 0.000 0.000 5.272 1.000 1.800

9 5.750

(continued)

$33,485.49 $0.00 $0.00 $187,955.60 $39,666.55 $71,399.79 $332,507.43

7.099 0.000 0.000 5.378 1.000 1.800

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnom ic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$28,019.16 $0.00 0.0000 4.5000 1.0000

Capital Investment $2,675,000.00 Interest 0.00 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.250 cents per k W h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,966,655 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Nashua Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 3 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.5 Nashua Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #3)

292

$133,750.14 $12,088.33 $12,500.00 $158,338.47

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

$107,198.00 (Revenues - Expenditures) Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $2,843,486.14 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$34,155.20 $0.00 $0.00 $191,714.71 $39,666.55 $0.00 $265,536.46

$133,750.14 $12,576.69 $12,500.00 $158,826.83

$35,535.07 $0.00 $0.00 $199,459.99 $39,666.55 $0.00 $274,661.61

7.533 0.000 0.000 5.707 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$147,276.73

$133,750.14 $10,317.27 $12,500.00 $156,567.41

$111,473.63 $115,834.77 20 year, analysis $142,174.31 /year

$133,750.14 $12,330.09 $12,500.00 $158,580.23

$34,838.30 $0.00 $0.00 $195,549.01 $39,666.55 $0.00 $270,053.86

7.386 0.000 0.000 5.595 1.000 0.000

7.241 0.000 0.000 5.485 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

11 5.750

$143,699.07

$140,191.56

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$133,750.14 $10,114.97 $12,500.00 $156,365.11

$133,750.14 $9,916.64 $12,500.00 $156,166.78

(Continued)

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

TABLE 12.5

$120,283.14

$133,750.14 $12,828.23 $12,500.00 $159,078.37

$36,245.77 $0.00 $0.00 $203,449.19 $39,666.55 $0.00 $279,361.51

7.684 0.000 0.000 5.821 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$150,925.94

$133,750.14 $10,523.62 $12,500.00 $156,773.76

$124,820.48

$133,750.14 $13,084.79 $12,500.00 $159,334.93

$36,970.69 $0.00 $0.00 $207,518.17 $39,666.55 $0.00 $284,155.41

7.838 0.000 0.000 5.938 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$154,648.13

$133,750.14 $10,734.09 $12,500.00 $156,984.23

$129,448.56

$133,750.14 $13,346.49 $12,500.00 $159,596.63

$37,710.10 $0.00 $0.00 $211,668.54 $39,666.55 $0.00 $289,045.19

7.994 0.000 0.000 6.056 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$158,444.77

$133,750.14 $10,948.77 $12,500.00 $157,198.91

$134,169.20

$133,750.14 $13,613.42 $12,500.00 $159,863.56

$38,464.30 $0.00 $0.00 $215,901.91 $39,666.55 $0.00 $294,032.76

8.154 0.000 0.000 6.178 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$162,317.34

$133,750.14 $11,167.74 $12,500.00 $157,417.88

$138,984.26

$133,750.14 $13,885.69 $12,500.00 $160,135.83

$39,233.59 $0.00 $0.00 $220,219.94 $39,666.55 $0.00 $299,120.08

8.317 0.000 0.000 6.301 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$166,267.37

$133,750.14 $11,391.10 $12,500.00 $157,641.24

$143,895.61

$133,750.14 $14,163.40 $12,500.00 $160,413.54

$40,018.26 $0.00 $0.00 $224,624.34 $39,666.55 $0.00 $304,309.15

8.484 0.000 0.000 6.427 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$170,296.39

$133,750.14 $11,618.92 $12,500.00 $157,869.06

$148,905.20

$133,750.14 $14,446.67 $12,500.00 $160,696.81

$40,818.63 $0.00 $0.00 $229,116.83 $39,666.55 $0.00 $309,602.01

8.653 0.000 0.000 6.556 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$174,405.99

$133,750.14 $11,851.30 $12,500.00 $158,101.44

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: DELHI, IOWA

293

look for a technology company wishing to have a relatively ﬁxed and low-cost source of energy to locate in their community using electrical power from the hydroelectric facility. In this way, the new company and the community will prosper by utilization of the hydro facilities and keeping the local energy assets and generated wealth at home. This approach is innovative as it brings in new residents (company’s employees), increased tax base, growth in housing, schools, new jobs, and new business opportunities for the community.22

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: DELHI, IOWA The Delhi Mill dam hydroelectric facility is located on the Maquoketa River (South Fork) about 1.4 miles south of the town of Delhi, Iowa. Looking downstream from left to right, the facility comprises a 60-foot wide concrete reinforced earth ﬁll embankment abutting a dolomitic limestone bluff on the north side of the river, a 61-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse, an 86-foot-long concrete gated spillway with three 25-foot-wide by 17-foot-high vertical sluice gates and a 495-foot-long zoned embankment initiating on the right abutment (south side) of the Maquoketa River. County road X31 crosses the dam, spillway, and the powerhouse. The total height of the structure from the streambed to the top of the roadway is 58.5 feet. A commercial substation is located just 100 feet of the powerhouse on the north side of the river. Two turbines were installed into the powerhouse in 1928 and used for generation of electricity until 1973. Consider this facility to be a typical low-head hydroelectric power generation application. A picture of such a typical existing low-head dam facility with potential is shown in Figs. 12.15 and 12.16 (the Delhi Mill Dam/Spillway, Powerhouse, and Roadway, Delhi, Iowa (Fig. 12.17).

FIGURE 12.15

Delhi Mill Dam and Spillway, Delhi, Iowa.

294

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.16

Delhi Mill Dam and Facility, Delhi, Iowa.

The existing low-head dam facility was investigated as to its potential economic feasibility for hydroelectric generation of power. The local owners are the Lake Delhi Recreation Association. The $2.792 million project will consist of two turbines and have a capacity of about 750 kW each for a total of about 1500 kW. This capital cost includes generating equipment, controls, switchgear, transmission line, and transformers. Each will have a hydraulic capacity of 276 cfs. The estimated average head is 37.5 feet. Operation of the facility is run-of-the-river. The powerhouse on the Delhi Mill Dam facility is located on the Maquoketa River in Iowa and would generate an average of about 3,472,500 kWh/year of electricity. O&M costs were considered to be $17,362 per year plus a capital budget reserve of $12,500 per year. The combined O&M costs would total 0.860 cents/kWh. Capital is considered at a cost of 5.75% interest, including the cost of ﬁnancing and insurance for 20 years. This amounts to $236,709 per year for the capital cost of the project. Revenues and expenditures were escalated at 2% per year. The capital reserve of $12,500 per year was included at a ﬁxed value, since it is considered to be an interest-bearing account. Discussion of the Delhi Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Case #1: Delhi Hydroelectric Facility A revenue to the hydrofacility results by the city purchasing the electrical energy at 5.000 cents/kWh, which is a reasonable purchase price of energy from a utility company. A Federal incentive payment provides for a cash ﬂow of 1.8 ¢/kWh for renewable energy generated by the hydrofacility. Green tags for the generation of green energy are considered to have a market value of 1.0 ¢/kWh. As a result of these revenues, a positive cash

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: DELHI, IOWA

FIGURE 12.17

295

Delhi Roadway, Powerhouse, Spillway, and Dam.

ﬂow begins at year 1 for $4,284 and increases to $34,790 at year 10. Federal incentive payments from the Energy Bill 2005 end at year 10. Even with no Federal incentive payments for generation of renewable energy, the project continues to generate positive cash ﬂows. After year 20, the bond has been paid so as to generate an additional positive cash ﬂow of $236,700.00 per year, from paying off the bond, for the life of the physical plant, which is typically for another 30 years. For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #1, economic details are presented in Table 12.6 with annual cash ﬂows. Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh was used for production in the ﬁrst 10 years and green tags were set at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) in 20 years would be $6,607/year, before taxes, which is basically breakeven until the bond is paid off. Case #2: Delhi Hydroelectric Facility For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #2, economic details are presented in Table 12.7 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #2 is similar to Case #1, but “no” Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for

296 Lake Delhi Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Delhi, Iowa

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $173,625.00 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $270,855.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $177,097.50 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $274,327.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.100 1.000 1.800

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 1.000 1.800

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.202 1.000 1.800

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $180,639.45 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $277,869.45

% increase per year

kWh/year

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

2.00

3,472,500

0 0 0 3,472,500 3,472,500

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Fed Incentive revenue

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.860 cents per kW h of production

PRELIMINARY

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $184,252.24 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $281,482.24

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.306 1.000 1.800

4 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,937.28 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $285,167.28

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.412 1.000 1.800

5 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $191,696.03 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $288,926.03

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.520 1.000 1.800

6 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $195,529.95 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $292,759.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.631 1.000 1.800

7 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $199,440.55 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $296,670.55

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.743 1.000 1.800

8 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,429.36 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $300,659.36

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.858 1.000 1.800

9 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $207,497.95 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $304,727.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.975 1.000 1.800

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnom ic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$0.00 $0.00 0.0000 5.0000 1.0000

Capital Investment $2,791,865.92 Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.500 cents per kW h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,472,500 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Lake Delhi Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 1 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.6 Delhi Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #1)

297

$236,708.65 $21,164.79 $12,500.00 $270,373.44

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

(Revenues - Expenditures) -$24,000.53 Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $132,144.75 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $211,647.91 $34,725.00 $0.00 $246,372.91

$236,708.65 $22,019.85 $12,500.00 $271,228.50

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,198.48 $34,725.00 $0.00 $254,923.48

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.341 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$10,596.86

$236,708.65 $18,063.95 $12,500.00 $267,272.60

-$20,190.87 -$16,305.02 20 year, analysis $6,607.24 /year

$236,708.65 $21,588.09 $12,500.00 $270,796.74

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215,880.86 $34,725.00 $0.00 $250,605.86

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.217 1.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.095 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

$7,409.10

$236,708.65 $17,709.75 $12,500.00 $266,918.40

11 5.750

$4,283.85

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$236,708.65 $17,362.50 $12,500.00 $266,571.15

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

-$12,341.44

$236,708.65 $22,460.25 $12,500.00 $271,668.90

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $224,602.45 $34,725.00 $0.00 $259,327.45

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.468 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$13,848.37

$236,708.65 $18,425.22 $12,500.00 $267,633.87

-$8,298.60

$236,708.65 $22,909.45 $12,500.00 $272,118.10

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $229,094.50 $34,725.00 $0.00 $263,819.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.597 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$17,164.91

$236,708.65 $18,793.73 $12,500.00 $268,002.38

-$4,174.90

$236,708.65 $23,367.64 $12,500.00 $272,576.29

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $233,676.39 $34,725.00 $0.00 $268,401.39

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.729 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$20,547.78

$236,708.65 $19,169.60 $12,500.00 $268,378.25

$31.28

$236,708.65 $23,834.99 $12,500.00 $273,043.64

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238,349.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $273,074.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.864 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$23,998.31

$236,708.65 $19,553.00 $12,500.00 $268,761.65

$4,321.57

$236,708.65 $24,311.69 $12,500.00 $273,520.34

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $243,116.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $277,841.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.001 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$27,517.84

$236,708.65 $19,944.05 $12,500.00 $269,152.70

$8,697.68

$236,708.65 $24,797.93 $12,500.00 $274,006.58

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $247,979.25 $34,725.00 $0.00 $282,704.25

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.141 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$31,107.77

$236,708.65 $20,342.94 $12,500.00 $269,551.59

$13,161.31

$236,708.65 $25,293.88 $12,500.00 $274,502.53

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $252,938.84 $34,725.00 $0.00 $287,663.84

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.284 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$34,769.50

$236,708.65 $20,749.79 $12,500.00 $269,958.44

298

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

production was considered. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government grant of 30% of the project cost as provided by the enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cost was reduced from $2,791,900.00 to $1,954,300.00 as presented in Table 12.7.20 For Case #2, positive cash ﬂows for the 20-year ﬁnancing in these years are: year 1, $12,791; year 5, $25,672; year 10, $43,277. The average annual net revenue (revenue– expenditures) over 20 years would be $46,367/year, before taxes. One key point in this economic analysis is that the 30% grant is eligible for the private sector. Case #3: Delhi Hydroelectric Facility For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #3, economic details are presented in Table 12.8 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #3 is similar to Case #1 with Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production in the ﬁrst 10 years. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government program of CREBs provision for ﬁnancing the project cost as provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.20 CREBs provide for interest-free “zero percent interest” ﬁnancing of the project for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cash ﬂows are presented in Table 12.8. For Case #3, positive cash ﬂows for the 20-year ﬁnancing in these years are: year 1, $101,399; year 5, $114,280; year 10, $131,885. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) over 20 years would be $103,722/year, with no taxes for a local community facility. The Delhi economic cases illustrate the importance of selling power from the hydrofacility to a grid system. If this power is sold at 5.000 cents/kWh to the grid system, cash ﬂow to the Recreation Association and hydrofacility is attractive. For some areas of the country, utilities may be hard-nosed and resist fair and equitable negotiations. When this occurs, a rural community could look for a technology company wishing to have a relatively ﬁxed and low-cost source of energy to locate in their community using electrical power from the hydroelectric facility. In this way, the new company and the community will prosper by utilization of the hydrofacilities and keeping the local energy assets and generated wealth at home. This approach is innovative by bringing in new residents (company’s employees), increased tax base, growth in housing, schools, new jobs, and new business opportunities for the community.22

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: FORT DODGE, IOWA The economic viability of low-head dam and hydroenergy at Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Fort Dodge, Iowa is discussed as a source of green energy and how a low-head dam can improve a city utility’s bottom line. Many communities have become more interested in a source of additional revenue during economic downturns where tax revenues have been reduced substantially. Since many rural areas have existing lowhead dams constructed in the early 1900s, a logical approach to increasing revenues is

299

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $173,625.00 $34,725.00 $0.00 $208,350.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $177,097.50 $34,725.00 $0.00 $211,822.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.100 1.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.202 1.000 0.000

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $180,639.45 $34,725.00 $0.00 $215,364.45

% increase per year

kWh/year

3,472,500

2.00

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

0 0 0 3,472,500 3,472,500

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Fed Incentive revenue

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.860 cents per k W h of production

PRELIMINARY

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $184,252.24 $34,725.00 $0.00 $218,977.24

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.306 1.000 0.000

4 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,937.28 $34,725.00 $0.00 $222,662.28

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.412 1.000 0.000

5 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $191,696.03 $34,725.00 $0.00 $226,421.03

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.520 1.000 0.000

6 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $195,529.95 $34,725.00 $0.00 $230,254.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.631 1.000 0.000

7 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $199,440.55 $34,725.00 $0.00 $234,165.55

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.743 1.000 0.000

8 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,429.36 $34,725.00 $0.00 $238,154.36

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.858 1.000 0.000

9 5.750

(continued)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $207,497.95 $34,725.00 $0.00 $242,222.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.975 1.000 0.000

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnomic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$0.00 $0.00 0.0000 5.0000 1.0000

Capital Investment $1,954,306.14 Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.500 cents per k W h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,472,500 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Lake Delhi Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Delhi, Iowa

Delhi Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #2)

Lake Delhi Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 2 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.7

300

$165,696.05 $21,164.79 $12,500.00 $199,360.84

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

(Revenues - Expenditures) $47,012.07 Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $927,346.75 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $211,647.91 $34,725.00 $0.00 $246,372.91

$165,696.05 $22,019.85 $12,500.00 $200,215.90

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,198.48 $34,725.00 $0.00 $254,923.48

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.341 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$19,104.46

$165,696.05 $18,063.95 $12,500.00 $196,260.00

$50,821.73 $54,707.58 20 year, analysis $46,367.34 /year

$165,696.05 $21,588.09 $12,500.00 $199,784.14

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215,880.86 $34,725.00 $0.00 $250,605.86

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.217 1.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.095 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

11 5.750

$15,916.70

$12,791.45

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$165,696.05 $17,709.75 $12,500.00 $195,905.80

$165,696.05 $17,362.50 $12,500.00 $195,558.55

(Continued)

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

TABLE 12.7

$58,671.16

$165,696.05 $22,460.25 $12,500.00 $200,656.30

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $224,602.45 $34,725.00 $0.00 $259,327.45

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.468 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$22,355.97

$165,696.05 $18,425.22 $12,500.00 $196,621.27

$62,714.00

$165,696.05 $22,909.45 $12,500.00 $201,105.50

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $229,094.50 $34,725.00 $0.00 $263,819.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.597 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$25,672.51

$165,696.05 $18,793.73 $12,500.00 $196,989.78

$66,837.70

$165,696.05 $23,367.64 $12,500.00 $201,563.69

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $233,676.39 $34,725.00 $0.00 $268,401.39

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.729 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$29,055.38

$165,696.05 $19,169.60 $12,500.00 $197,365.65

$71,043.88

$165,696.05 $23,834.99 $12,500.00 $202,031.04

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238,349.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $273,074.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.864 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$32,505.91

$165,696.05 $19,553.00 $12,500.00 $197,749.05

$75,334.17

$165,696.05 $24,311.69 $12,500.00 $202,507.74

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $243,116.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $277,841.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.001 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$36,025.44

$165,696.05 $19,944.05 $12,500.00 $198,140.10

$79,710.28

$165,696.05 $24,797.93 $12,500.00 $202,993.98

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $247,979.25 $34,725.00 $0.00 $282,704.25

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.141 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$39,615.37

$165,696.05 $20,342.94 $12,500.00 $198,538.99

$84,173.91

$165,696.05 $25,293.88 $12,500.00 $203,489.93

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $252,938.84 $34,725.00 $0.00 $287,663.84

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.284 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$43,277.10

$165,696.05 $20,749.79 $12,500.00 $198,945.84

301

Lake Delhi Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Delhi, Iowa

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $173,625.00 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $270,855.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $177,097.50 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $274,327.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.100 1.000 1.800

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 1.000 1.800

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.202 1.000 1.800

3 5.750

at

or or or at at

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $180,639.45 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $277,869.45

% increase per year

kWh/year

3,472,500

2.00

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

0 0 0 3,472,500 3,472,500

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Fed Incentive revenue

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags

0.860 cents per kW h of production

PRELIMINARY

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $184,252.24 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $281,482.24

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.306 1.000 1.800

4 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,937.28 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $285,167.28

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.412 1.000 1.800

5 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $191,696.03 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $288,926.03

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.520 1.000 1.800

6 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $195,529.95 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $292,759.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.631 1.000 1.800

7 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $199,440.55 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $296,670.55

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.743 1.000 1.800

8 5.750

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $203,429.36 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $300,659.36

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.858 1.000 1.800

9 5.750

(continued)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $207,497.95 $34,725.00 $62,505.00 $304,727.95

0.000 0.000 0.000 5.975 1.000 1.800

10 5.750

$, in YR-1 (Includes City Hall, Civic facilities, and Street Lights) $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh (NOTE: The green tags could be worth more with time but were considered constant in this economic evaluation.) 1.8000 cents/kWh (NOTE: For a ten year period at beginning of project; also there is an inflation factor that can be used here but was neglected in this ecnom ic analysis.) (Note: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing accou

$0.00 $0.00 0.0000 5.0000 1.0000

Capital Investment $2,791,865.92 Interest 0.00 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually O&M 0.500 cents per kW h of production O&M including Capital Budget Reserve Hydrofacility Production: 3,472,500 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river

Lake Delhi Hydroelectric Project, CASE # 3 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.8 Delhi Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #3)

302

$139,593.44 $21,164.79 $12,500.00 $173,258.23

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

(Revenues - Expenditures) $73,114.68 Total (Revenues - Expenditures) $2,074,448.95 Average Annual (Revenue - Expenditures)

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $211,647.91 $34,725.00 $0.00 $246,372.91

$139,593.44 $22,019.85 $12,500.00 $174,113.29

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $220,198.48 $34,725.00 $0.00 $254,923.48

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.341 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$107,712.07

$139,593.44 $18,063.95 $12,500.00 $170,157.39

$76,924.34 $80,810.19 20 year, analysis $103,722.45 /year

$139,593.44 $21,588.09 $12,500.00 $173,681.53

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $215,880.86 $34,725.00 $0.00 $250,605.86

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.217 1.000 0.000

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.095 1.000 0.000

Revenues: Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Purchased Energy Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

12 5.750

$104,524.31

$139,593.44 $17,709.75 $12,500.00 $169,803.19

11 5.750

$101,399.06

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Year----> Bond Interest, % Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Civic Facilities Street Lights Energy Sold Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$139,593.44 $17,362.50 $12,500.00 $169,455.94

(Continued)

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

TABLE 12.8

$84,773.77

$139,593.44 $22,460.25 $12,500.00 $174,553.69

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $224,602.45 $34,725.00 $0.00 $259,327.45

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.468 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$110,963.58

$139,593.44 $18,425.22 $12,500.00 $170,518.66

$88,816.61

$139,593.44 $22,909.45 $12,500.00 $175,002.89

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $229,094.50 $34,725.00 $0.00 $263,819.50

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.597 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$114,280.12

$139,593.44 $18,793.73 $12,500.00 $170,887.17

$92,940.31

$139,593.44 $23,367.64 $12,500.00 $175,461.08

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $233,676.39 $34,725.00 $0.00 $268,401.39

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.729 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$117,662.99

$139,593.44 $19,169.60 $12,500.00 $171,263.04

$97,146.49

$139,593.44 $23,834.99 $12,500.00 $175,928.43

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238,349.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $273,074.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 6.864 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

$121,113.52

$139,593.44 $19,553.00 $12,500.00 $171,646.44

$101,436.78

$139,593.44 $24,311.69 $12,500.00 $176,405.13

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $243,116.92 $34,725.00 $0.00 $277,841.92

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.001 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

$124,633.05

$139,593.44 $19,944.05 $12,500.00 $172,037.49

$105,812.89

$139,593.44 $24,797.93 $12,500.00 $176,891.37

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $247,979.25 $34,725.00 $0.00 $282,704.25

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.141 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

$128,222.98

$139,593.44 $20,342.94 $12,500.00 $172,436.38

$110,276.52

$139,593.44 $25,293.88 $12,500.00 $177,387.32

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $252,938.84 $34,725.00 $0.00 $287,663.84

0.000 0.000 0.000 7.284 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

$131,884.71

$139,593.44 $20,749.79 $12,500.00 $172,843.23

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: FORT DODGE, IOWA

303

to refurbish these old assets by utilization of existing but unused powerhouse for the generation of hydroelectric energy for use by the municipal government. Any excess energy from the hydroelectric power plant would be sold to the existing grid system currently supplying power to the surrounding area. With today’s high cost of electricity, a small community could ﬁnd this hydroelectric generation of power attractive. Thus, some interest has been generated recently from citizens, environmental groups, politicians, and commercial companies. Particular interest lies with civic authorities of cities with low-head dams, which have a potential of generating additional revenues to be used for revitalizing a declining rural community. Finally, a Federal incentive payment of 1.8 ¢/kWh is available for the generation of renewable energy and interest-free (CREBs as a result of the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005. In addition, the Federal government enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided a grant for 30% of the project cost of a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. These energy bills have made many past potential hydrosites currently economically attractive.20,21 With this interest, a sense of direction is needed to bring a reality check as to the economic potential of existing low-head dams for generation of hydroelectric energy. Much useful information can be obtained in publications on low-head dams. Smallscale or low-head power plants have been deﬁned as having an electrical capacity of less than 15 MW (small-scale) or a dam height of less than 65.6 feet (low-head). With fuel costs escalating over the years, economic conditions are beginning to favor a return to small-scale and low-head hydroelectric power generation. This is particularly true for municipalities with existing low-head dams, which typically had abandoned hydropower generation around the 1950s or so.22,19 Pictures of such a typical existing low-head dam facility with potential are shown in Figs. 12.18, 12.19, and 12.20 for the Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Gates and Powerhouse, Fort Dodge, Iowa. The Fort Dodge hydroelectric facility was constructed in 1916 and used to generate electrical power until 1971 when the Iowa Illinois Gas & Electric Company decommissioned the facility. The facility was decommissioned because lower energy cost was available from other sources. Since that time, fundamentally, the economic picture in the energy business has changed dramatically. Thus, new thinking

FIGURE 12.18

Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Gates and Powerhouse, Fort Dodge, Iowa.

304

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

FIGURE 12.19

Fort Dodge Powerhouse and Mill Dam Gates, Fort Dodge, Iowa.

FIGURE 12.20

Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Gates and Powerhouse, Fort Dodge, Iowa

outside-the-box and a fresh look at the economic viability of this hydroelectric facility provided the logical atmosphere to work hard at developing a business plan to make the Fort Dodge Mill Dam hydroelectric facility economically viable without raising taxes on the public. As a brief description of the site, the Fort Dodge Mill Dam hydropower facility is a powerhouse and a concrete dam, 342 feet long and 18 feet high, consisting of a 230-foot-long overﬂow spillway and ﬁve (15 feet 20 feet) tainter gates. As mentioned earlier, the facility generated hydropower from about 1916 to 1971. The turbines, generators, and electrical equipment were removed, but the trash racks and stop log guides are in place. The reservoir is about 90 acres with negligible storage. From USGS data, the estimated maximum ﬂow of the Des Moines River at the plant will be based upon stream ﬂow records from 1981 to 2000: Maximum ﬂow Minimum ﬂow Average ﬂow of the stream per day

30,200 cfs (7/14/1993) 20 cfs (12/24/1989) 2,644 cfs (from 1981 to 2000)

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: FORT DODGE, IOWA

305

The economic assessment presented here includes the installation of two new 700 kW Kaplan turbine generator units and associated equipment in the existing powerhouse. The installed capacity will be 1.4 MW. The average annual generation is estimated to be 7,506,117 kWh per year. The type of operation will be run-of-theriver. Normal operating gross head will be 14.5 feet. Upstream and downstream silt from the powerhouse area will need to be removed. Also, a transmission line will need to be connected with the powerhouse grid owned by MidAmerican Energy Company. The facility is located on the Des Moines River, which is a navigable waterway of the United States. The estimated capital requirements of the project cost for placing the Fort Dodge hydroelectric facility into operation are: . .

Equipment; Site; and Construction Dam Refurbishment Total estimated project cost

$6;000;000:00 $1;000;000:00 $7;000;000:00

As mentioned earlier, the estimated annual generation would be 7,506,117 kWh/ year. The methodology used to estimate the energy production from the Fort Dodge hydroelectric facility will be presented at the end. Lastly, the production of hydroelectric energy from the facility would be for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa. Discussion of the Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Economic Analyses Case #1: Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Facility A revenue source to the hydrofacility results from the city replacing the electrical energy from these sources of the city currently purchasing power from the local utility: a. Six wells þ Water plant þ Sewer plant: 6,443,964 kWh/year at 6.094 cents/ kWh b. City Hall þ Library þ Blanden: 730,960 kWh/year at 7.416 cents/kWh c. Street lights: 641,784 kWh/year at 2.669 cents/kWh Other sources of revenue are from enacted Federal energy regulations. Federal incentive payment provides for a cash ﬂow of 1.8 ¢/kWh for renewable energy generated by the hydrofacility for the ﬁrst 10 years. Green tags for the generation of green energy are considered to have a market value of 1.0 ¢/kWh. For expenditures, the project cost of $7,000,000.00 was ﬁnanced with bonds for 20 years at 5.75% and payment semiannually. O&M cost was selected at 0.25 kWh/ year plus a capital budget reserve of $12,500.00/year, which results in a total O&M cost of 0.583 cents/kWh. O&M cost was based upon an understanding that the current hydrofacility was operated and maintained by city services and that a modern renovated hydrofacility would lend itself to economy of scale by integration into the city’s currently available services. When a shortage of energy results from the

306

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

hydrofacility, any purchased energy for the city’s users listed would come from the local utility at 6.091 cents/kWh. Any excess energy generated from the hydrofacility would be sold to the local utility at 4.500 cents/kWh. Energy production from the Fort Dodge hydrofacility was estimated on a daily basis from 1981 to 2000. Consequently, daily, monthly, and yearly production of energy was available; a summary of monthly and yearly energy production from the hydrofacility is shown in Table 12.12. The methodology for computation of these daily energy production estimates is presented at the end and in Table 12.13. As a result of these economic parameters, a positive cash is generated of $15,811/year over the 20-year period of the project. Essentially, this case is a break-even so the project generates sufﬁcient cash to operate and maintain the dam and hydrofacility without funds being required from the taxpayers. After year 20, the bond has been paid so as to generate an additional positive cash ﬂow of $593,495.74 per year, after paying off the bond. Also, the life of a hydrophysical plant is typically for another 30 years or more, which consequently generates much cash for future generations. For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #1, economic details are presented in Table 12.9 with annual cash ﬂows. Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh was used for production in the ﬁrst 10 years and green tags were set at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) in 20 years would be $15,811.27/year, before taxes (city pays no taxes), which is basically breakeven until the bond is paid off. Case #2: Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Facility For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #2, economic details are presented in Table 12.10 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #2 is similar to Case #1, but “no” Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production was considered. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. O&M cost was taken at 1.000 cents/kWh plus a capital budget reserve of $25,000.00 per year, giving a total of 1.333 cents/kWh. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government grant of 30% of the project cost as provided by the enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cost was reduced from $7,000,000.00 to $4,900,000.00 as presented in Table 12.10.20 For Case #2, overall, positive cash ﬂows exist for the 20-year ﬁnancing. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) over 20 years would be $65,423/ year, before taxes. One key point in this economic analysis is that the 30% grant is eligible for the private sector. Case #3: Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Facility For a 20-year ﬁnancing, Case #3, economic details are presented in Table 12.11 with annual cash ﬂows. Case #3 is similar to Case #1 with Federal incentive payment of 1.8 cents/kWh for production in the ﬁrst 10 years. As before, green tags were taken at 1.00 cents/kWh for 20 years. O&M cost was taken at 0.500 cents/kWh plus a capital budget reserve of $25,000.00 per year, giving a total of 0.833 cents/kWh. However, the economic analysis used a Federal government program of CREBs provision for ﬁnancing the project cost as

307

PRELIMINARY

9,153,136

5,560,159

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

6.216 7.564 2.722 4.590 6.213 1.000 1.800

6.094 7.416 2.669 4.500 6.091 1.000 1.800

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

2 5.750

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, %

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 2.6689 4.5000 6.0910 1.0000 1.8000

cents/kWh of production

$, in YR-1 $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is positive cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is negaative cents/kWh (Note: The green tags have a typical market value between 1.0 to 2.0 cents/kWh) cents/kWh (Note: First 10-years of project, no inflation factor was used)

0.583

6.340 7.715 2.777 4.682 6.337 1.000 1.800 8,436,527

6.467 7.869 2.832 4.775 6.464 1.000 1.800

4 5.750

8,598,157

6.596 8.027 2.889 4.871 6.593 1.000 1.800

5 5.750

9,866,657

6.728 8.187 2.947 4.968 6.725 1.000 1.800

6 5.750

6,626,189

6.863 8.351 3.006 5.068 6.859 1.000 1.800

7 5.750

3,533,065

7.000 8.518 3.066 5.169 6.997 1.000 1.800

8 5.750

1,412,662

7.140 8.688 3.127 5.272 7.137 1.000 1.800

9 5.750

(continued)

3,612,490

7.283 8.862 3.190 5.378 7.279 1.000 1.800

10 5.750

(NOTE: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing account.)

3 5.750

or or or at at at at

9,917,632

% increase per year

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

2.00

6,443,964 730,960 641,784 0 1,336,428 5,560,159 5,560,159

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD, YR-1 Excess Energy PURCHASED, YR-2 Green Tags, YR-1 Fed Incentive revenue, YR-1

Capital Investment $7,000,000.00 [Capital Investment - GRANT] = $7,000,000.00 Grant = 0.00 % = $0.00 GRANT Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually 2 payment per year O&M 0.250 cents per kW h of production O&M Including Capital Budget Reverve Hydrofacility Production: 7,506,117 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river; (O&M based upon this production)

Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Fort Dodge, Iowa

Fort Dodge Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #1)

Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Project, CASE #1 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.9

308

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

$478,699.27 $66,074.85 $20,879.64 $0.00 $78,108.12 $0.00 $643,761.87

7,810,812

7.429 9.039 3.253 5.485 7.425 1.000 0.000

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

11 5.750

$488,273.25 $67,396.35 $21,297.23 $184,584.57 $111,156.98 $0.00 $872,708.38

11,115,698

7.577 9.220 3.318 5.595 7.573 1.000 0.000

12 5.750

$153,307.27

(Revenues - Expenditures) -$154,989.89

Year----> Bond Interest, %

$593,495.74 $0.00 $19,140.60 $25,000.00 $637,636.34

$593,495.74 $137,446.40 $18,765.29 $25,000.00 $774,707.43

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

$400,554.13 $55,288.48 $17,471.14 $61,342.05 $91,531.36 $164,756.45 $790,943.61

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 $17,128.57 $0.00 $55,601.59 $100,082.86 $619,717.55

(Continued)

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

TABLE 12.9

$498,038.72 $68,744.27 $21,723.17 $128,117.96 $100,616.00 $0.00 $817,240.13

10,061,600

7.729 9.405 3.385 5.707 7.725 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$220,815.64

$593,495.74 $0.00 $19,523.41 $25,000.00 $638,019.15

$408,565.22 $56,394.25 $17,820.57 $98,361.06 $99,176.32 $178,517.38 $858,834.79

$507,999.49 $70,119.16 $22,157.64 $131,274.61 $100,718.09 $0.00 $832,268.99

10,071,809

7.883 9.593 3.453 5.821 7.879 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$119,847.83

$593,495.74 $0.00 $19,913.88 $25,000.00 $638,409.62

$416,736.52 $57,522.13 $18,176.98 $29,599.06 $84,365.27 $151,857.49 $758,257.45

$518,159.48 $71,521.54 $22,600.79 $115,659.93 $97,646.14 $0.00 $825,587.88

9,764,614

8.041 9.785 3.522 5.938 8.037 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$142,288.79

$593,495.74 $0.00 $20,312.16 $25,000.00 $638,807.90

$425,071.25 $58,672.57 $18,540.52 $38,063.95 $85,981.57 $154,766.83 $781,096.69

$528,522.67 $72,951.97 $23,052.80 $78,036.69 $91,052.06 $0.00 $793,616.20

9,105,206

8.202 9.980 3.592 6.056 8.198 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$251,231.21

$593,495.74 $0.00 $20,718.40 $25,000.00 $639,214.14

$433,572.67 $59,846.03 $18,911.33 $101,848.92 $98,666.57 $177,599.83 $890,445.35

$539,093.12 $74,411.01 $23,513.86 $0.00 $73,598.94 $0.00 $710,616.94

7,359,894

8.366 10.180 3.664 6.178 8.362 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

-$13,181.70

$593,495.74 $81,663.12 $21,132.77 $25,000.00 $721,291.63

$442,244.13 $61,042.95 $19,289.56 $0.00 $66,261.89 $119,271.40 $708,109.92

$549,874.99 $75,899.23 $23,984.14 $25,202.83 $82,166.84 $0.00 $757,128.03

8,216,684

8.533 10.384 3.737 6.301 8.529 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

-$307,808.45

$593,495.74 $299,711.27 $21,555.42 $25,000.00 $939,762.43

$451,089.01 $62,263.81 $19,675.35 $0.00 $35,330.65 $63,595.17 $631,953.98

$560,872.49 $77,417.22 $24,463.82 $0.00 $64,254.22 $0.00 $727,007.74

6,425,422

8.704 10.591 3.812 6.427 8.699 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

-$514,268.70

$593,495.74 $457,029.69 $21,986.53 $25,000.00 $1,097,511.96

$460,110.79 $63,509.08 $20,068.85 $0.00 $14,126.62 $25,427.92 $583,243.26

$572,089.94 $78,965.56 $24,953.10 $0.00 $34,739.29 $0.00 $710,747.88

3,473,929

8.878 10.803 3.888 6.556 8.873 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

-$291,247.79

$593,495.74 $306,038.01 $22,426.26 $25,000.00 $946,960.01

$469,313.01 $64,779.26 $20,470.23 $0.00 $36,124.90 $65,024.82 $655,712.22

309

$1,953.57

$316,225.44

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Total (Revenues - Expenditures) Avg. Annual (Revenues - Expenditures) Annual Average Production =

$174,945.46

$593,495.74 $0.00 $23,798.93 $25,000.00 $642,294.67

20 year, analysis

$230,880.36

$593,495.74 $0.00 $23,332.28 $25,000.00 $641,828.02

$15,811.27 /year 7,506,117 kWh/Year

$593,495.74 $437.77 $22,874.79 $25,000.00 $641,808.30

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures $189,498.34

$593,495.74 $0.00 $24,274.91 $25,000.00 $642,770.65 $182,331.73

$593,495.74 $0.00 $24,760.41 $25,000.00 $643,256.15 $149,864.84

$593,495.74 $0.00 $25,255.61 $25,000.00 $643,751.35 $28,163.34

$593,495.74 $38,197.13 $25,760.73 $25,000.00 $682,453.60 $112,356.35

$593,495.74 $0.00 $26,275.94 $25,000.00 $644,771.68 -$39,323.66

-$320,439.10

$593,495.74 $593,495.74 $121,034.20 $385,353.75 $26,801.46 $27,337.49 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $766,331.40 $1,031,186.98

310 PRELIMINARY

6.094 7.416 2.669 4.500 6.091 1.000 0.000

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

5,560,159

1 5.750

Year----> Bond Interest, %

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

2.00

6,443,964 730,960 641,784 0 1,336,428 5,560,159 5,560,159

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD, YR-1 Excess Energy PURCHASED, YR-2 Green Tags, YR-1 Fed Incentive revenue, YR-1

9,153,136

6.216 7.564 2.722 4.590 6.213 1.000 0.000

2 5.750

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 2.6689 4.5000 6.0910 1.0000 1.8000

cents/kW h of production

$, in YR-1 $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is positive cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is negaative cents/kWh (Note: The green tags have a typical market value between 1.0 to 2.0 cents/kW cents/kWh (Note: First 10-years of project, no inflation factor was used)

1.333

6.340 7.715 2.777 4.682 6.337 1.000 0.000

3 5.750

8,436,527

6.467 7.869 2.832 4.775 6.464 1.000 0.000

4 5.750

8,598,157

6.596 8.027 2.889 4.871 6.593 1.000 0.000

5 5.750

9,866,657

6.728 8.187 2.947 4.968 6.725 1.000 0.000

6 5.750

6,626,189

6.863 8.351 3.006 5.068 6.859 1.000 0.000

7 5.750

3,533,065

7.000 8.518 3.066 5.169 6.997 1.000 0.000

8 5.750

1,412,662

7.140 8.688 3.127 5.272 7.137 1.000 0.000

9 5.750

3,612,490

7.283 8.862 3.190 5.378 7.279 1.000 0.000

10 5.750

(NOTE: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing account.)

or or or at at at at

9,917,632

% increase per year

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

Capital Investment $7,000,000.00 [Capital Investment - GRANT] = $4,900,000.00 Grant = 30.00 % = $2,100,000.00 GRANT Interest 5.75 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually 2 payment per year O&M 1.000 cents per kW h of production O&M Including Capital Budget Reverve kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river; (O&M based upon this production) Hydrofacility Production: 7,506,117

Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Fort Dodge, Iowa

Fort Dodge Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #2)

Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Project, CASE #2 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.10

311

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

$478,699.27 $66,074.85 $20,879.64 $0.00 $78,108.12 $0.00 $643,761.87

7,810,812

7.429 9.039 3.253 5.485 7.425 1.000 0.000

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

11 5.750

$488,273.25 $67,396.35 $21,297.23 $184,584.57 $111,156.98 $0.00 $872,708.38

11,115,698

7.577 9.220 3.318 5.595 7.573 1.000 0.000

12 5.750

$109,177.75

(Revenues - Expenditures) -$133,319.91

Year----> Bond Interest, %

$415,447.02 $0.00 $76,562.39 $25,000.00 $517,009.41

$415,447.02 $137,446.40 $75,061.17 $25,000.00 $652,954.59

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

$400,554.13 $55,288.48 $17,471.14 $61,342.05 $91,531.36 $0.00 $626,187.16

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 $17,128.57 $0.00 $55,601.59 $0.00 $519,634.68

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

$498,038.72 $68,744.27 $21,723.17 $128,117.96 $100,616.00 $0.00 $817,240.13

10,061,600

7.729 9.405 3.385 5.707 7.725 1.000 0.000

13 5.750

$161,776.75

$415,447.02 $0.00 $78,093.64 $25,000.00 $518,540.66

$408,565.22 $56,394.25 $17,820.57 $98,361.06 $99,176.32 $0.00 $680,317.41

$507,999.49 $70,119.16 $22,157.64 $131,274.61 $100,718.09 $0.00 $832,268.99

10,071,809

7.883 9.593 3.453 5.821 7.879 1.000 0.000

14 5.750

$86,297.43

$415,447.02 $0.00 $79,655.52 $25,000.00 $520,102.54

$416,736.52 $57,522.13 $18,176.98 $29,599.06 $84,365.27 $0.00 $606,399.96

$518,159.48 $71,521.54 $22,600.79 $115,659.93 $97,646.14 $0.00 $825,587.88

9,764,614

8.041 9.785 3.522 5.938 8.037 1.000 0.000

15 5.750

$104,634.22

$415,447.02 $0.00 $81,248.63 $25,000.00 $521,695.65

$425,071.25 $58,672.57 $18,540.52 $38,063.95 $85,981.57 $0.00 $626,329.86

$528,522.67 $72,951.97 $23,052.80 $78,036.69 $91,052.06 $0.00 $793,616.20

9,105,206

8.202 9.980 3.592 6.056 8.198 1.000 0.000

16 5.750

$189,524.90

$415,447.02 $0.00 $82,873.60 $25,000.00 $523,320.62

$433,572.67 $59,846.03 $18,911.33 $101,848.92 $98,666.57 $0.00 $712,845.52

$539,093.12 $74,411.01 $23,513.86 $0.00 $73,598.94 $0.00 $710,616.94

7,359,894

8.366 10.180 3.664 6.178 8.362 1.000 0.000

17 5.750

-$17,802.69

$415,447.02 $81,663.12 $84,531.07 $25,000.00 $606,641.21

$442,244.13 $61,042.95 $19,289.56 $0.00 $66,261.89 $0.00 $588,838.52

$549,874.99 $75,899.23 $23,984.14 $25,202.83 $82,166.84 $0.00 $757,128.03

8,216,684

8.533 10.384 3.737 6.301 8.529 1.000 0.000

18 5.750

-$258,021.17

$415,447.02 $299,711.27 $86,221.69 $25,000.00 $826,379.98

$451,089.01 $62,263.81 $19,675.35 $0.00 $35,330.65 $0.00 $568,358.81

$560,872.49 $77,417.22 $24,463.82 $0.00 $64,254.22 $0.00 $727,007.74

6,425,422

8.704 10.591 3.812 6.427 8.699 1.000 0.000

19 5.750

-$427,607.49

$415,447.02 $457,029.69 $87,946.13 $25,000.00 $985,422.84

$460,110.79 $63,509.08 $20,068.85 $0.00 $14,126.62 $0.00 $557,815.35

(continued)

$572,089.94 $78,965.56 $24,953.10 $0.00 $34,739.29 $0.00 $710,747.88

3,473,929

8.878 10.803 3.888 6.556 8.873 1.000 0.000

20 5.750

-$245,502.68

$415,447.02 $306,038.01 $89,705.05 $25,000.00 $836,190.08

$469,313.01 $64,779.26 $20,470.23 $0.00 $36,124.90 $0.00 $590,687.40

312

$111,377.93

$1,308,457.94

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Total (Revenues - Expenditures) Avg. Annual (Revenues - Expenditures) Annual Average Production =

$281,597.39

$415,447.02 $0.00 $95,195.71 $25,000.00 $535,642.73

20 year, analysis

$338,932.23

$415,447.02 $0.00 $93,329.13 $25,000.00 $533,776.15

$65,422.90 /year 7,506,117 kWh/Year

$415,447.02 $437.77 $91,499.15 $25,000.00 $532,383.94

(Continued)

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

TABLE 12.10

$294,722.34

$415,447.02 $0.00 $97,099.63 $25,000.00 $537,546.65 $286,099.24

$415,447.02 $0.00 $99,041.62 $25,000.00 $539,488.64 $252,146.72

$415,447.02 $0.00 $101,022.45 $25,000.00 $541,469.47 $128,929.88

$415,447.02 $38,197.13 $103,042.90 $25,000.00 $581,687.05

$211,577.25

$415,447.02 $0.00 $105,103.76 $25,000.00 $545,550.78

$58,320.69

$415,447.02 $121,034.20 $107,205.84 $25,000.00 $668,687.06

-$224,402.84

$415,447.02 $385,353.75 $109,349.95 $25,000.00 $935,150.72

313

PRELIMINARY

6.094 7.416 2.669 4.500 6.091 1.000 1.800

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

5,560,159

1 0.000

Year----> Bond Interest, %

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

2.00

6,443,964 730,960 641,784 0 1,336,428 5,560,159 5,560,159

Increase per year of energy sales price "and" O&M Expenses

Energy Usage from Hydrofacility: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD, YR-1 Excess Energy PURCHASED, YR-2 Green Tags, YR-1 Fed Incentive revenue, YR-1

9,153,136

6.216 7.564 2.722 4.590 6.213 1.000 1.800

2 0.000

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 2.6689 4.5000 6.0910 1.0000 1.8000

cents/kW h of production

$, in YR-1 $, in YR-1 cents/kWh, YR-1 cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is positive cents/kWh, Yr-1; Negotiated with utility company, selling price when excess energy is negaative cents/kWh (Note: The green tags have a typical market value between 1.0 to 2.0 cents/kW cents/kWh (Note: First 10-years of project, no inflation factor was used)

0.833

6.340 7.715 2.777 4.682 6.337 1.000 1.800

3 0.000

8,436,527

6.467 7.869 2.832 4.775 6.464 1.000 1.800

4 0.000

8,598,157

6.596 8.027 2.889 4.871 6.593 1.000 1.800

5 0.000

9,866,657

6.728 8.187 2.947 4.968 6.725 1.000 1.800

6 0.000

6,626,189

6.863 8.351 3.006 5.068 6.859 1.000 1.800

7 0.000

3,533,065

7.000 8.518 3.066 5.169 6.997 1.000 1.800

8 0.000

1,412,662

7.140 8.688 3.127 5.272 7.137 1.000 1.800

9 0.000

(continued)

3,612,490

7.283 8.862 3.190 5.378 7.279 1.000 1.800

10 0.000

(NOTE: Capital Budget Reserve is not increased annually because it is expected to be in an interest bearing account.)

or or or at at at at

9,917,632

% increase per year

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

Capital Investment $7,000,000.00 [Capital Investment - GRANT] = $7,000,000.00 Grant = 0.00 % = $0.00 GRANT Interest 0.00 %, average over life of project including financing & insurance Bond 20 years and payments semi-annually 2 payment per year O&M 0.500 cents per kW h of production O&M Including Capital Budget Reverve Hydrofacility Production: 7,506,117 kWh/year; average for 20-years run-of-the-river; (O&M based upon this production)

Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility Fort Dodge, Iowa

Fort Dodge Mill Dam and Powerhouse Economics (Case #3)

Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Project, CASE #3 Cedar Rapids, Iowa Dr. Gary C. Young, P.E.

TABLE 12.11

314

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

Yearly Production, kWh/YR

$478,699.27 $66,074.85 $20,879.64 $0.00 $78,108.12 $0.00 $643,761.87

7,810,812

7.429 9.039 3.253 5.485 7.425 1.000 0.000

Energy Prices (cents/kWh): Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy (+) Selling Price Excess Energy (-) Purchase Price Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue

$69,740.20

(Revenues - Expenditures)

11 0.000

$350,000.36 $137,446.40 $37,530.59 $25,000.00 $549,977.35

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures

Year----> Bond Interest, %

$392,700.13 $54,204.39 $17,128.57 $0.00 $55,601.59 $100,082.86 $619,717.55

(Continued)

Revenues: Six Wells + Water plant + Sewer Plant City Hall + Library + Blanden Street Lights Excess Energy SOLD Green Tags Fed Incentive revenue Total Revenues

TABLE 12.11

$488,273.25 $67,396.35 $21,297.23 $184,584.57 $111,156.98 $0.00 $872,708.38

11,115,698

7.577 9.220 3.318 5.595 7.573 1.000 0.000

12 0.000

$377,662.05

$350,000.36 $0.00 $38,281.20 $25,000.00 $413,281.56

$400,554.13 $55,288.48 $17,471.14 $61,342.05 $91,531.36 $164,756.45 $790,943.61

$498,038.72 $68,744.27 $21,723.17 $128,117.96 $100,616.00 $0.00 $817,240.13

10,061,600

7.729 9.405 3.385 5.707 7.725 1.000 0.000

13 0.000

$444,787.60

$350,000.36 $0.00 $39,046.82 $25,000.00 $414,047.18

$408,565.22 $56,394.25 $17,820.57 $98,361.06 $99,176.32 $178,517.38 $858,834.79

$507,999.49 $70,119.16 $22,157.64 $131,274.61 $100,718.09 $0.00 $832,268.99

10,071,809

7.883 9.593 3.453 5.821 7.879 1.000 0.000

14 0.000

$343,429.33

$350,000.36 $0.00 $39,827.76 $25,000.00 $414,828.12

$416,736.52 $57,522.13 $18,176.98 $29,599.06 $84,365.27 $151,857.49 $758,257.45

$518,159.48 $71,521.54 $22,600.79 $115,659.93 $97,646.14 $0.00 $825,587.88

9,764,614

8.041 9.785 3.522 5.938 8.037 1.000 0.000

15 0.000

$365,472.02

$350,000.36 $0.00 $40,624.31 $25,000.00 $415,624.67

$425,071.25 $58,672.57 $18,540.52 $38,063.95 $85,981.57 $154,766.83 $781,096.69

$528,522.67 $72,951.97 $23,052.80 $78,036.69 $91,052.06 $0.00 $793,616.20

9,105,206

8.202 9.980 3.592 6.056 8.198 1.000 0.000

16 0.000

$474,008.19

$350,000.36 $0.00 $41,436.80 $25,000.00 $416,437.16

$433,572.67 $59,846.03 $18,911.33 $101,848.92 $98,666.57 $177,599.83 $890,445.35

$539,093.12 $74,411.01 $23,513.86 $0.00 $73,598.94 $0.00 $710,616.94

7,359,894

8.366 10.180 3.664 6.178 8.362 1.000 0.000

17 0.000

$209,180.91

$350,000.36 $81,663.12 $42,265.53 $25,000.00 $498,929.01

$442,244.13 $61,042.95 $19,289.56 $0.00 $66,261.89 $119,271.40 $708,109.92

$549,874.99 $75,899.23 $23,984.14 $25,202.83 $82,166.84 $0.00 $757,128.03

8,216,684

8.533 10.384 3.737 6.301 8.529 1.000 0.000

18 0.000

-$85,868.49

$350,000.36 $299,711.27 $43,110.85 $25,000.00 $717,822.47

$451,089.01 $62,263.81 $19,675.35 $0.00 $35,330.65 $63,595.17 $631,953.98

$560,872.49 $77,417.22 $24,463.82 $0.00 $64,254.22 $0.00 $727,007.74

6,425,422

8.704 10.591 3.812 6.427 8.699 1.000 0.000

19 0.000

-$292,759.85

$350,000.36 $457,029.69 $43,973.06 $25,000.00 $876,003.12

$460,110.79 $63,509.08 $20,068.85 $0.00 $14,126.62 $25,427.92 $583,243.26

$572,089.94 $78,965.56 $24,953.10 $0.00 $34,739.29 $0.00 $710,747.88

3,473,929

8.878 10.803 3.888 6.556 8.873 1.000 0.000

20 0.000

-$70,178.67

$350,000.36 $306,038.01 $44,852.52 $25,000.00 $725,890.90

$469,313.01 $64,779.26 $20,470.23 $0.00 $36,124.90 $65,024.82 $655,712.22

315

$222,574.17

$4,730,185.79

(Revenues - Expenditures)

Total (Revenues - Expenditures) Avg. Annual (Revenues - Expenditures) Annual Average Production =

$394,641.91

$350,000.36 $0.00 $47,597.86 $25,000.00 $422,598.22

20 year, analysis

$451,043.45

$350,000.36 $0.00 $46,664.57 $25,000.00 $421,664.93

$236,509.29 /year 7,506,117 kWh/Year

$350,000.36 $437.77 $45,749.57 $25,000.00 $421,187.71

Expenditures: Bond + Insurance + Interest: Excess Energy PURCHASED O&M Capital Budget Reserve Total Expenditures $408,718.81

$350,000.36 $0.00 $48,549.81 $25,000.00 $423,550.17 $401,066.71

$350,000.36 $0.00 $49,520.81 $25,000.00 $424,521.17 $368,104.61

$350,000.36 $0.00 $50,511.23 $25,000.00 $425,511.59 $245,897.99

$350,000.36 $38,197.13 $51,521.45 $25,000.00 $464,718.94 $329,575.79

$350,000.36 $0.00 $52,551.88 $25,000.00 $427,552.24 $177,370.27

$350,000.36 $121,034.20 $53,602.92 $25,000.00 $549,637.48 -$104,281.20

$350,000.36 $385,353.75 $54,674.98 $25,000.00 $815,029.09

316

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

provided by Energy Policy Act of 2005.20 CREBs provide for interest-free “zero percent interest” ﬁnancing of the project for a qualiﬁed hydropower facility. Thus, the project facility cash ﬂows are presented in Table 12.11. For Case #3, positive cash ﬂows for the 20-year ﬁnancing in these years are: year 1, $69,740 and year 5, $365,472. The average annual net revenue (revenue–expenditures) over 20 years would be $236,509/year, with no taxes for a local community facility. For Fort Dodge Mill Dam hydroelectric facility in Fort Dodge, Iowa, the economic cases illustrate the importance of using power from the hydrofacility for the beneﬁt of the local community. With the proper economically viable business plan selected, this hydrofacility can pay for itself without a tax burden upon the local taxpayers. For some areas of the country, utilities may be hard nosed and resist fair and equitable negotiations. When this occurs, an alternative business plan may be to look for a technology company wishing to have a relatively ﬁxed and low-cost source of energy to locate in their community using electrical power from the hydroelectric facility. In this way, the new company and the community will prosper by utilization of the hydrofacilities and keeping the local energy assets and generated wealth at home. This approach is innovative in bringing in new residents (company’s employees), increased tax base, growth in housing, schools, new jobs, and new business opportunities for the community.22 Daily Flow and Production Methodology, Fort Dodge Mill Dam Hydroelectric Facility FORT DODGE MILL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Daily Flow and Production Tables Formulas Used in Calculations The text below shows how the daily ﬂow data from the USGS was analyzed from 01/01/1981 to 12/31/2000 to obtain a daily power generation and kWh energy production. The daily kWh energy production was summed and presented as monthly ﬁgures followed by addition of monthly production ﬁgures to annual production. The recognized equation, Equation (12.1), for computation of power generation from water was used:19 KW ¼ QHEt Egtot =11:8

ð12:1Þ

where, KW ¼ electrical power generated by a turbine, kilowatts (kW) Q ¼ water ﬂow through the turbine, cubic feet per second (cfs) H ¼ elevation through which water drops minus losses (feet) (Note, H is the effective head, which is the static head minus the losses of the water passage). (H may not be known for preliminary computations, so “conservative” values for turbine operation with ﬂow ranges were used in these computations when the elevation through which water drops was used for H.)

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: FORT DODGE, IOWA

317

Et ¼ turbine efﬁciency (fraction) Egtot ¼ generator (Egen) gear ratio (Egear) transformer (Etrans), electromechanical efﬁciency(s), (fraction) The two turbines and related electromechanical efﬁciencies used are:

Turbine #1 Turbine #2

Capacity (kW)

Flow Capacity Minimum (qmin) (cfs)

Flow Capacity Maximum (qmax) (cfs)

Egen (%)

Egear (%)

Etrans (%)

700 700

268.0 268.0

670.0 670.0

94.5 94.5

97.0 97.0

98.0 98.0

For a given turbine, it can operate from 100% of design ﬂow to a percentage of design ﬂow. The Kaplan type turbine can operate to 40% of design ﬂow or 268 cfs (670 40/100). Thus, each of these turbines can operate from 268 cfs to 670 cfs. (Note, these limitations are conservative and were speciﬁcally used so as to be conservative in estimating energy production for a preliminary economic analysis when all facts of a project case are unknown until ﬁnal engineering is completed in the future if the project is considered economically viable by preliminary economic analysis.) With this limitation on ﬂow requirements of each turbine, the daily run-of-the-river ﬂow data in the fourth column of Table 12.13 must be considered as to how the two turbines can operate at this daily ﬂow rate. For example, ﬁve possible cases arise to analyze the daily data. Consider these deﬁnitions for ﬂow rates: Q ¼ run-of-the-river ﬂow (cfs); Q1 ¼ ﬂow through turbine #1 (cfs); and Q2 ¼ ﬂow through turbine #2 (cfs). Conditions of ﬂow for these two turbines to operate are: Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5

IF(Q < qmin, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) IF(AND(Q qmin,Q qmax), Q1 ¼ Q, Q2 ¼ 0 IF(AND(Q > qmax, Q qmax þ qmin), Q1 ¼ Q qmin, Q2 ¼ qmin IF(AND(Q > qmax þ qmin, Q qmax þ qmax), Q1 ¼ Q qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax IF(Q > qmax þ qmax, Q1 ¼ qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax)

These “ﬁve conditions” allow the turbines to operate properly, and the daily ﬂow data is analyzed and computed accordingly. Before proceeding, the turbine efﬁciency is a function of ﬂow rate through the turbine. Thus, Turbine #1 efﬁciency depends upon ﬂow rate, Q1, and Turbine #2 efﬁciency depends upon ﬂow rate, Q2. Turbine efﬁciency for the Kaplan type is taken as: Q1 or Q2 (cfs) Et in % Q1 or Q2 (cfs) Et in % Q1 or Q2, (cfs) Et in %

67.0 49.2 368.5 88.2 670.0 87.0

100.5 55.5 402.0 90.0

134.0 61.3 596.3 91.0

167.5 66.6 469.0 92.2

201.0 71.5 502.5 92.6

234.5 75.8 536.0 92.5

268.0 79.6 569.5 91.9

301.5 83.0 603.0 90.7

335.0 85.8 636.5 89.1

318

0 0 950,217 502,440 463,383 414,476 584,065 44,982 0 0 0 953,946 565,575 556,048 421,045 488,179 496,075 70,969 376,227 0

344,381

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Averages:

382,183

143,036 216,093 735,946 620,866 115,091 337,775 435,516 178,228 0 0 68,409 896,109 454,432 513,181 395,110 733,070 565,006 394,446 749,084 92,270

February kWh

761,979

137,392 957,910 957,910 957,910 880,863 957,910 740,123 931,907 443,232 123,373 930,153 957,910 724,759 957,910 838,761 827,326 957,910 913,894 954,974 87,443

779,516

328,336 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 892,599 364,873 75,765 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 23,594

April kWh

866,350

584,086 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 951,146 957,675 471,004 586,787 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 365,561

May kWh

843,723

768,470 927,010 927,010 927,010 917,074 927,010 735,718 467,580 121,263 917,449 927,010 925,892 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 927,010 896,890

June kWh

826,321

944,047 957,910 957,910 957,910 609,477 957,910 771,976 18,085 12,290 899,475 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 957,910 941,586 957,910 873,057 957,910 919,412

July kWh

Reference:

kWh / month

642,675

772,190 526,226 637,809 692,337 220,466 867,552 416,413 27,842 0 725,705 888,034 957,910 957,910 953,693 897,813 925,598 706,691 641,348 525,408 512,557

August kWh

kWh / month

455,958

507,893 840,237 509,127 228,047 805,218 726,945 380,634 7,467 0 278,024 359,564 874,265 927,010 807,568 777,848 465,120 254,522 265,802 49,889 53,970

September kWh

Spreadsheet; FDMD, Flow data & energy analysis, USGS data, 10-28-2003 Results are based upon U.S. Geological Survey data. USGS; Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, IA

kWh / month kWh / month kWh / month kWh / month kWh / month kWh / month kWh / month

January kWh

Year

March kWh

Opinion of Potential Energy Generation based upon the past years of USGS data. Years from 1981 through 2000 1400 KW Electrical Power Generation Capacity 14.5 FT., Elevation through which water drops

SUMMARY TABLE

Subject:

kWh / month

571,433

467,850 927,010 894,578 634,674 904,354 927,010 149,297 0 0 5,912 603,029 927,010 867,974 876,568 920,052 711,503 208,080 927,010 0 476,743

November kWh

kWh / month

493,059

571,416 957,910 767,321 333,592 957,910 957,910 235,534 6,700 0 0 233,873 857,138 957,910 950,403 957,910 380,416 232,616 502,615 0 0

October kWh

kWh / month

538,541

335,443 957,910 694,884 696,821 839,401 907,239 298,757 0 0 0 957,910 922,688 836,190 686,598 786,235 820,478 169,154 815,613 0 45,489

December kWh

kWh / year

7,506,117

5,560,159 9,153,136 9,917,632 8,436,527 8,598,157 9,866,657 6,626,189 3,533,065 1,412,662 3,612,490 7,810,812 11,115,698 10,061,600 10,071,809 9,764,614 9,105,206 7,359,894 8,216,684 6,425,422 3,473,929

Total Annual kWh

10/30/2003 Dr. Gary C. Young, Ph.D, P.E. GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Summary of Potential Energy Generation of Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Fort Dodge, Iowa

Fort Dodge Mill Dam Fort Dodge, Iowa

TABLE 12.12

319

# agency_cd Agency Code # site_no USGS station number Turbine #1 # dv_dt date of daily mean streamflow Turbine #2 # dv_va daily mean streamflow value, in cubic-feet per-second # dv_cd daily mean streamflow value qualification code H # # Sites in this file include: # USGS 05480500 Des Moines River at Fort Dodge, IA # computed (computed) Run of computed condition-2 condition-3 River condition-1 IF(AND(Q IF(AND(Q >=qmin, Q >qmax, IF(Q
Turbines: (computed) Capacity cfs (min) 268.0 268.0

(computed) condition-4 IF(AND(Q> qmax+qmin, Q<=qmax +qmax), Q1=Q-qmax, Q2=qmax FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

(Input) Egen % 94.5 94.5

(Input) Egear % 97.0 97.0

Q1 (cfs) 0 0 0 0 0

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turbine 1 (%)

(computed) Power from

(Input) Etrans % 98.0 98.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turbine 1 Turbine 1 (%) (kW)

(INPUT) (CONDIT- (input) (compIONAL) Et, uted) Flow thru Turbine Egtot, Turbine 1 Efficiency Efficiency

(Input) Capacity cfs (max) 670.0 670.0

(computed) condition-5 IF(Q>qmax +qmax, Q1=qmax, Q2=qmax)

14.5 feet (input)

(Input) Capacity KW 700 700

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(computed) Energy from Turbine 1 * 24 hrs (kWh)

kW = Q * H * Et * Egtot / 11.8 where: kW = electrical power generated by turbine Q = water flow through the turbine, cfs H = elevation through which the water drops, feet Et = turbine efficiency, % Egtot = generator * gear ratios * transformer electro-mechanical efficiencies, %

Fort Dodge Mill Dam Flow and Production Computations, Fort Dodge, Iowa

# U.S. Geological Survey # National Water Information System # Retrieved: 2003-03-31 21:19:23 EST # # This file contains published daily mean streamflow data. # # Further Descriptions of the dv_cd column can be found at: # http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/help?codes_help#dv_cd # # # This information includes the following fields: #

TABLE 12.13

0 0 0 0 0

Q2 (cfs)

(INPUT) (CONDITIONAL) Flow thru Turbine 2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turbine 2 (%)

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

Turbine 2 (%)

(input) (compEt, uted) Turbine Egtot Efficiency Efficiency

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turbine 2 (kW)

(computed) Power from

Gary C. Young, Ph.D., P.E. GYCO, Inc. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(continued)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(comp(comp(computed) uted) uted) Total Energy Energy Total from from Power Turbines Turbine 2 from 1&2 * 24 hrs Turbines 1&2 * 24 hrs (kWh) (kW) (kWh)

320

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

1/6/1981 1/7/1981 1/8/1981 1/9/1981 1/10/1981 1/11/1981 1/12/1981 1/13/1981 1/14/1981 1/15/1981 1/16/1981 1/17/1981 1/18/1981 1/19/1981 1/20/1981 1/21/1981 1/22/1981 1/23/1981 1/24/1981 1/25/1981 1/26/1981 1/27/1981 1/28/1981 1/29/1981 1/30/1981 1/31/1981

170 196 168 154 156 160 142 140 140 134 124 126 130 134 134 134 136 138 144 154 168 168 160 150 148 138

(Continued)

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 Total- January 1981

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

321

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

2/1/1981 2/2/1981 2/3/1981 2/4/1981 2/5/1981 2/6/1981 2/7/1981 2/8/1981 2/9/1981 2/10/1981 2/11/1981 2/12/1981 2/13/1981 2/14/1981 2/15/1981 2/16/1981 2/17/1981 2/18/1981 2/19/1981 2/20/1981 2/21/1981 2/22/1981 2/23/1981 2/24/1981 2/25/1981 2/26/1981 2/27/1981 2/28/1981

140 136 130 130 132 130 132 128 122 120 115 115 116 118 168 238 300 527 602 656 642 636 575 439 431 423 397 381

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 527 602 656 642 636 575 439 431 423 397 381

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 92.6 90.8 88.0 88.8 89.2 91.7 91.5 91.2 90.9 89.8 88.9

89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 274.3 89.83 538.5 89.83 603.3 89.83 637.1 89.83 629.5 89.83 626.0 89.83 582.1 89.83 443.3 89.83 433.9 89.83 424.5 89.83 393.4 89.83 373.9 Total- February 1981

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,582.3 12,923.0 14,479.7 15,290.3 15,108.9 15,024.7 13,970.9 10,639.2 10,414.8 10,188.3 9,440.5 8,973.3 143,036.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,582.3 12,923.0 14,479.7 15,290.3 15,108.9 15,024.7 13,970.9 10,639.2 10,414.8 10,188.3 9,440.5 8,973.3 143,036.1

(continued)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 274.3 538.5 603.3 637.1 629.5 626.0 582.1 443.3 433.9 424.5 393.4 373.9

322

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

3/1/1981 3/2/1981 3/3/1981 3/4/1981 3/5/1981 3/6/1981 3/7/1981 3/8/1981 3/9/1981 3/10/1981 3/11/1981 3/12/1981 3/13/1981 3/14/1981 3/15/1981 3/16/1981 3/17/1981 3/18/1981 3/19/1981 3/20/1981 3/21/1981 3/22/1981 3/23/1981 3/24/1981 3/25/1981 3/26/1981 3/27/1981 3/28/1981 3/29/1981 3/30/1981 3/31/1981

364 353 338 332 317 313 318 300 306 308 301 299 294 281 272 268 270 263 255 245 246 251 253 253 251 259 256 253 285 327 347

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

364 353 338 332 317 313 318 300 306 308 301 299 294 281 272 268 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 327 347

87.9 87.1 86.0 85.6 84.3 84.0 84.4 82.8 83.4 83.5 82.9 82.7 82.3 81.0 80.0 79.6 79.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.4 85.2 86.7

89.83 353.0 89.83 339.5 89.83 321.0 89.83 313.6 89.83 295.1 89.83 290.2 89.83 296.3 89.83 274.3 89.83 281.6 89.83 284.1 89.83 275.5 89.83 273.0 89.83 266.9 89.83 251.2 89.83 240.3 89.83 235.5 89.83 237.9 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 256.0 89.83 307.4 89.83 332.1 Total- March 1981

8,473.0 8,147.9 7,703.8 7,526.1 7,082.6 6,964.6 7,112.2 6,582.3 6,758.5 6,817.4 6,611.7 6,553.0 6,406.6 6,028.1 5,768.1 5,653.1 5,710.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,144.2 7,378.2 7,970.3 137,392.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

353.0 339.5 321.0 313.6 295.1 290.2 296.3 274.3 281.6 284.1 275.5 273.0 266.9 251.2 240.3 235.5 237.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.0 307.4 332.1

8,473.0 8,147.9 7,703.8 7,526.1 7,082.6 6,964.6 7,112.2 6,582.3 6,758.5 6,817.4 6,611.7 6,553.0 6,406.6 6,028.1 5,768.1 5,653.1 5,710.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,144.2 7,378.2 7,970.3 137,392.1

323

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

4/1/1981 4/2/1981 4/3/1981 4/4/1981 4/5/1981 4/6/1981 4/7/1981 4/8/1981 4/9/1981 4/10/1981 4/11/1981 4/12/1981 4/13/1981 4/14/1981 4/15/1981 4/16/1981 4/17/1981 4/18/1981 4/19/1981 4/20/1981 4/21/1981 4/22/1981 4/23/1981 4/24/1981 4/25/1981 4/26/1981 4/27/1981 4/28/1981 4/29/1981 4/30/1981

371 335 441 531 518 528 523 519 502 487 471 489 479 453 434 440 442 427 423 422 394 419 433 415 408 391 408 558 471 427

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

371 335 441 531 518 528 523 519 502 487 471 489 479 453 434 440 442 427 423 422 394 419 433 415 408 391 408 558 471 427

88.3 85.8 91.5 92.5 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.6 92.5 92.3 92.5 92.4 91.9 91.3 91.5 91.6 91.1 90.9 90.9 89.6 90.8 91.3 90.6 90.3 89.5 90.3 92.1 92.3 91.1

89.83 361.6 89.83 317.3 89.83 445.6 89.83 542.4 89.83 529.5 89.83 539.4 89.83 534.5 89.83 530.5 89.83 513.1 89.83 497.2 89.83 479.7 89.83 499.4 89.83 488.5 89.83 459.4 89.83 437.5 89.83 444.5 89.83 446.8 89.83 429.2 89.83 424.5 89.83 423.3 89.83 389.7 89.83 419.8 89.83 436.3 89.83 415.0 89.83 406.6 89.83 386.1 89.83 406.6 89.83 567.5 89.83 479.7 89.83 429.2 Total- April 1981

8,679.4 7,614.9 10,695.0 13,016.6 12,708.6 12,946.5 12,828.3 12,732.7 12,315.2 11,933.2 11,513.1 11,984.8 11,724.7 11,026.6 10,499.2 10,667.1 10,722.8 10,301.8 10,188.3 10,159.9 9,353.3 10,074.4 10,471.1 9,960.0 9,758.9 9,265.9 9,758.9 13,619.4 11,513.1 10,301.8 328,335.5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8,679.4 7,614.9 10,695.0 13,016.6 12,708.6 12,946.5 12,828.3 12,732.7 12,315.2 11,933.2 11,513.1 11,984.8 11,724.7 11,026.6 10,499.2 10,667.1 10,722.8 10,301.8 10,188.3 10,159.9 9,353.3 10,074.4 10,471.1 9,960.0 9,758.9 9,265.9 9,758.9 13,619.4 11,513.1 10,301.8 328,335.5

(continued)

361.6 317.3 445.6 542.4 529.5 539.4 534.5 530.5 513.1 497.2 479.7 499.4 488.5 459.4 437.5 444.5 446.8 429.2 424.5 423.3 389.7 419.8 436.3 415.0 406.6 386.1 406.6 567.5 479.7 429.2

324

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

5/1/1981 5/2/1981 5/3/1981 5/4/1981 5/5/1981 5/6/1981 5/7/1981 5/8/1981 5/9/1981 5/10/1981 5/11/1981 5/12/1981 5/13/1981 5/14/1981 5/15/1981 5/16/1981 5/17/1981 5/18/1981 5/19/1981 5/20/1981 5/21/1981 5/22/1981 5/23/1981 5/24/1981 5/25/1981 5/26/1981 5/27/1981 5/28/1981 5/29/1981 5/30/1981 5/31/1981

406 384 376 489 551 683 852 911 880 815 746 695 668 643 641 631 612 590 548 516 474 461 718 2680 3110 2580 2260 2060 1920 1690 1390

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

406 384 376 489 551 415 584 643 612 547 478 427 668 643 641 631 612 590 548 516 474 461 450 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

90.2 89.1 88.6 92.5 92.3 90.6 91.4 88.8 90.4 92.3 92.4 91.1 87.2 88.8 88.9 89.4 90.4 91.2 92.3 92.6 92.3 92.1 91.8 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 404.2 89.83 377.6 89.83 367.8 89.83 499.4 89.83 561.2 89.83 415.0 89.83 589.5 89.83 630.1 89.83 610.5 89.83 557.5 89.83 487.4 89.83 429.2 89.83 642.9 89.83 630.1 89.83 629.0 89.83 623.0 89.83 610.5 89.83 594.2 89.83 558.4 89.83 527.5 89.83 483.0 89.83 468.5 89.83 456.0 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- May 1981

9,701.2 9,061.3 8,826.5 11,984.8 13,468.1 9,960.0 14,147.5 15,122.5 14,651.6 13,380.1 11,698.4 10,301.8 15,428.7 15,122.5 15,095.1 14,951.7 14,651.6 14,261.4 13,402.2 12,660.3 11,592.8 11,244.5 10,944.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 415,260.3

0 0 0 0 0 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 168,826.0

404.2 377.6 367.8 499.4 561.2 650.5 825.0 865.7 846.0 793.0 723.0 664.8 642.9 630.1 629.0 623.0 610.5 594.2 558.4 527.5 483.0 468.5 691.6 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

9,701.2 9,061.3 8,826.5 11,984.8 13,468.1 15,613.1 19,800.6 20,775.6 20,304.7 19,033.2 17,351.5 15,954.9 15,428.7 15,122.5 15,095.1 14,951.7 14,651.6 14,261.4 13,402.2 12,660.3 11,592.8 11,244.5 16,597.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 584,086.3

325

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

6/1/1981 6/2/1981 6/3/1981 6/4/1981 6/5/1981 6/6/1981 6/7/1981 6/8/1981 6/9/1981 6/10/1981 6/11/1981 6/12/1981 6/13/1981 6/14/1981 6/15/1981 6/16/1981 6/17/1981 6/18/1981 6/19/1981 6/20/1981 6/21/1981 6/22/1981 6/23/1981 6/24/1981 6/25/1981 6/26/1981 6/27/1981 6/28/1981 6/29/1981 6/30/1981

1170 1040 935 850 779 710 651 612 635 666 650 609 1100 2640 3580 4220 4280 3850 3240 2940 2700 2450 2120 8250 11800 9920 9470 8730 7840 7590

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

500 370 667 582 511 442 651 612 635 666 650 609 430 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

92.6 88.2 87.3 91.5 92.6 91.6 88.3 90.4 89.2 87.3 88.4 90.5 91.2 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 511.0 89.83 360.4 89.83 642.4 89.83 587.9 89.83 522.4 89.83 446.8 89.83 634.5 89.83 610.5 89.83 625.4 89.83 641.9 89.83 634.0 89.83 608.4 89.83 432.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- June 1981

12,265.0 8,649.9 15,417.8 14,108.8 12,538.3 10,722.8 15,228.0 14,651.6 15,010.3 15,406.8 15,215.2 14,601.0 10,386.6 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 436,854.8

670 670 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 331,615.6

27,715.1 24,100.1 21,070.9 19,761.9 18,191.4 16,375.9 15,228.0 14,651.6 15,010.3 15,406.8 15,215.2 14,601.0 25,836.8 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 768,470.4

(continued)

1,154.8 1,004.2 878.0 823.4 758.0 682.3 634.5 610.5 625.4 641.9 634.0 608.4 1,076.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

326

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

7/1/1981 7/2/1981 7/3/1981 7/4/1981 7/5/1981 7/6/1981 7/7/1981 7/8/1981 7/9/1981 7/10/1981 7/11/1981 7/12/1981 7/13/1981 7/14/1981 7/15/1981 7/16/1981 7/17/1981 7/18/1981 7/19/1981 7/20/1981 7/21/1981 7/22/1981 7/23/1981 7/24/1981 7/25/1981 7/26/1981 7/27/1981 7/28/1981 7/29/1981 7/30/1981 7/31/1981

7280 6200 5330 4640 4130 3630 3370 3060 2730 2410 2120 1840 1590 1360 1180 1120 1140 1200 1430 1790 1820 1920 2400 2580 2970 3120 3000 3080 3250 3350 3190

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 510 450 470 530 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 92.6 91.8 92.2 92.5 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 521.4 89.83 456.0 89.83 478.6 89.83 541.4 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- July 1981

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 12,513.8 10,944.2 11,486.4 12,993.3 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 465,092.0

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,165.2 1,099.8 1,122.4 1,185.1 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 27,963.9 26,394.3 26,936.6 28,443.4 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 944,046.9

327

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

8/1/1981 8/2/1981 8/3/1981 8/4/1981 8/5/1981 8/6/1981 8/7/1981 8/8/1981 8/9/1981 8/10/1981 8/11/1981 8/12/1981 8/13/1981 8/14/1981 8/15/1981 8/16/1981 8/17/1981 8/18/1981 8/19/1981 8/20/1981 8/21/1981 8/22/1981 8/23/1981 8/24/1981 8/25/1981 8/26/1981 8/27/1981 8/28/1981 8/29/1981 8/30/1981 8/31/1981

2880 3150 4760 3740 3060 2740 2430 2110 1840 1580 1350 1150 1020 946 865 836 918 972 994 929 794 575 558 551 542 715 939 1330 2170 2270 2290

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 480 350 276 597 568 650 302 324 661 526 575 558 551 542 447 269 660 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 92.4 86.9 80.5 91.0 91.9 88.4 83.0 84.9 87.7 92.6 91.7 92.1 92.3 92.4 91.7 79.7 87.7 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 489.6 89.83 335.8 89.83 245.1 89.83 599.6 89.83 576.2 89.83 634.0 89.83 276.7 89.83 303.7 89.83 639.6 89.83 537.5 89.83 582.1 89.83 567.5 89.83 561.2 89.83 552.9 89.83 452.6 89.83 236.7 89.83 639.1 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- August 1981

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 11,750.9 8,059.1 5,883.4 14,390.3 13,828.9 15,215.2 6,641.0 7,289.4 15,350.0 12,899.4 13,970.9 13,619.4 13,468.1 13,268.4 10,861.4 5,681.8 15,338.3 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 413,818.2

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 670 670 268 268 0 0 0 0 268 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 358,371.9

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 27,201.1 23,509.2 21,333.6 20,043.4 19,482.0 20,868.3 22,091.2 22,739.6 21,003.0 18,552.5 13,970.9 13,619.4 13,468.1 13,268.4 16,514.5 21,132.0 30,788.4 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 772,190.1

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,133.4 979.6 888.9 835.1 811.8 869.5 920.5 947.5 875.1 773.0 582.1 567.5 561.2 552.9 688.1 880.5 1,282.9 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

328

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

9/1/1981 9/2/1981 9/3/1981 9/4/1981 9/5/1981 9/6/1981 9/7/1981 9/8/1981 9/9/1981 9/10/1981 9/11/1981 9/12/1981 9/13/1981 9/14/1981 9/15/1981 9/16/1981 9/17/1981 9/18/1981 9/19/1981 9/20/1981 9/21/1981 9/22/1981 9/23/1981 9/24/1981 9/25/1981 9/26/1981 9/27/1981 9/28/1981 9/29/1981 9/30/1981

2330 2390 2420 2310 2050 1730 1510 1230 1030 907 804 736 673 609 552 522 491 448 410 391 379 364 344 344 404 385 369 344 342 336

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 560 360 639 536 468 405 609 552 522 491 448 410 391 379 364 344 344 404 385 369 344 342 336

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 92.1 87.6 89.0 92.5 92.2 90.1 90.5 92.2 92.6 92.5 91.7 90.4 89.5 88.8 87.9 86.5 86.5 90.1 89.1 88.2 86.5 86.3 85.9

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 569.2 89.83 348.1 89.83 627.8 89.83 547.2 89.83 476.4 89.83 403.0 89.83 608.4 89.83 562.1 89.83 533.5 89.83 501.5 89.83 453.7 89.83 409.0 89.83 386.1 89.83 371.4 89.83 353.0 89.83 328.4 89.83 328.4 89.83 401.8 89.83 378.8 89.83 359.2 89.83 328.4 89.83 325.9 89.83 318.5 Total- September 1981

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 13,661.9 8,354.9 15,067.3 13,132.1 11,433.0 9,672.3 14,601.0 13,490.0 12,804.5 12,036.3 10,889.1 9,816.5 9,265.9 8,914.6 8,473.0 7,881.4 7,881.4 9,643.4 9,090.5 8,620.5 7,881.4 7,822.2 7,644.5 346,228.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 161,663.8

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,213.0 991.9 863.3 782.7 711.9 638.6 608.4 562.1 533.5 501.5 453.7 409.0 386.1 371.4 353.0 328.4 328.4 401.8 378.8 359.2 328.4 325.9 318.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 29,112.1 23,805.0 20,720.4 18,785.2 17,086.1 15,325.4 14,601.0 13,490.0 12,804.5 12,036.3 10,889.1 9,816.5 9,265.9 8,914.6 8,473.0 7,881.4 7,881.4 9,643.4 9,090.5 8,620.5 7,881.4 7,822.2 7,644.5 507,892.7

329

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

10/1/1981 10/2/1981 10/3/1981 10/4/1981 10/5/1981 10/6/1981 10/7/1981 10/8/1981 10/9/1981 10/10/1981 10/11/1981 10/12/1981 10/13/1981 10/14/1981 10/15/1981 10/16/1981 10/17/1981 10/18/1981 10/19/1981 10/20/1981 10/21/1981 10/22/1981 10/23/1981 10/24/1981 10/25/1981 10/26/1981 10/27/1981 10/28/1981 10/29/1981 10/30/1981 10/31/1981

326 314 337 454 630 661 687 718 697 687 657 619 609 593 629 665 739 779 1000 1190 1230 1220 1180 1110 1070 1010 986 972 945 930 930

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

326 314 337 454 630 661 419 450 429 419 657 619 609 593 629 665 471 511 330 520 560 550 510 440 400 340 316 302 275 662 662

85.1 84.1 86.0 91.9 89.5 87.7 90.8 91.8 91.1 90.8 87.9 90.0 90.5 91.1 89.5 87.4 92.3 92.6 85.4 92.6 92.1 92.3 92.6 91.5 89.9 86.2 84.2 83.0 80.4 87.6 87.6

89.83 306.2 89.83 291.4 89.83 319.8 89.83 460.6 89.83 622.4 89.83 639.6 89.83 419.8 89.83 456.0 89.83 431.6 89.83 419.8 89.83 637.6 89.83 615.3 89.83 608.4 89.83 596.5 89.83 621.7 89.83 641.5 89.83 479.7 89.83 522.4 89.83 311.1 89.83 531.5 89.83 569.2 89.83 560.3 89.83 521.4 89.83 444.5 89.83 397.0 89.83 323.5 89.83 293.9 89.83 276.7 89.83 243.9 89.83 640.1 89.83 640.1 Total- October 1981

7,348.6 6,994.1 7,674.2 11,053.9 14,936.8 15,350.0 10,074.4 10,944.2 10,358.4 10,074.4 15,302.5 14,766.3 14,601.0 14,317.2 14,921.8 15,395.6 11,513.1 12,538.3 7,466.9 12,756.7 13,661.9 13,446.2 12,513.8 10,667.1 9,527.6 7,763.0 7,053.1 6,641.0 5,854.5 15,361.5 15,361.5 356,239.8

0 0 0 0 0 0 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 215,176.5

7,348.6 6,994.1 7,674.2 11,053.9 14,936.8 15,350.0 15,727.5 16,597.3 16,011.5 15,727.5 15,302.5 14,766.3 14,601.0 14,317.2 14,921.8 15,395.6 17,166.2 18,191.4 22,917.1 28,206.8 29,112.1 28,896.4 27,963.9 26,117.3 24,977.8 23,213.2 22,503.3 22,091.2 21,304.7 21,014.6 21,014.6 571,416.3

(continued)

306.2 291.4 319.8 460.6 622.4 639.6 655.3 691.6 667.1 655.3 637.6 615.3 608.4 596.5 621.7 641.5 715.3 758.0 954.9 1,175.3 1,213.0 1,204.0 1,165.2 1,088.2 1,040.7 967.2 937.6 920.5 887.7 875.6 875.6

330

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

11/1/1981 11/2/1981 11/3/1981 11/4/1981 11/5/1981 11/6/1981 11/7/1981 11/8/1981 11/9/1981 11/10/1981 11/11/1981 11/12/1981 11/13/1981 11/14/1981 11/15/1981 11/16/1981 11/17/1981 11/18/1981 11/19/1981 11/20/1981 11/21/1981 11/22/1981 11/23/1981 11/24/1981 11/25/1981 11/26/1981 11/27/1981 11/28/1981 11/29/1981 11/30/1981

880 853 824 799 798 774 752 738 701 675 729 645 631 618 613 608 601 584 595 577 516 515 587 566 578 594 593 591 583 609

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

612 585 556 531 530 506 484 470 433 407 461 645 631 618 613 608 601 584 595 577 516 515 587 566 578 594 593 591 583 609

90.4 91.4 92.2 92.5 92.5 92.6 92.5 92.2 91.3 90.2 92.1 88.7 89.4 90.1 90.3 90.5 90.8 91.4 91.1 91.7 92.6 92.6 91.3 91.9 91.6 91.1 91.1 91.2 91.5 90.5

89.83 610.5 89.83 590.3 89.83 565.7 89.83 542.4 89.83 541.4 89.83 517.3 89.83 494.0 89.83 478.6 89.83 436.3 89.83 405.4 89.83 468.5 89.83 631.2 89.83 623.0 89.83 614.6 89.83 611.2 89.83 607.7 89.83 602.6 89.83 589.5 89.83 598.1 89.83 583.8 89.83 527.5 89.83 526.5 89.83 591.9 89.83 574.5 89.83 584.6 89.83 597.3 89.83 596.5 89.83 595.0 89.83 588.7 89.83 608.4 Total- November 1981

14,651.6 14,166.7 13,576.5 13,016.6 12,993.3 12,415.0 11,855.4 11,486.4 10,471.1 9,730.1 11,244.5 15,149.5 14,951.7 14,750.2 14,668.3 14,584.0 14,462.0 14,147.5 14,353.9 14,010.7 12,660.3 12,636.0 14,204.8 13,787.6 14,030.5 14,335.6 14,317.2 14,280.1 14,128.2 14,601.0 405,666.3

268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62,184.1

846.0 825.8 801.2 777.9 776.9 752.8 729.5 714.1 671.8 641.0 704.1 631.2 623.0 614.6 611.2 607.7 602.6 589.5 598.1 583.8 527.5 526.5 591.9 574.5 584.6 597.3 596.5 595.0 588.7 608.4

20,304.7 19,819.8 19,229.6 18,669.7 18,646.4 18,068.0 17,508.5 17,139.5 16,124.2 15,383.2 16,897.6 15,149.5 14,951.7 14,750.2 14,668.3 14,584.0 14,462.0 14,147.5 14,353.9 14,010.7 12,660.3 12,636.0 14,204.8 13,787.6 14,030.5 14,335.6 14,317.2 14,280.1 14,128.2 14,601.0 467,850.4

331

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

12/1/1981 12/2/1981 12/3/1981 12/4/1981 12/5/1981 12/6/1981 12/7/1981 12/8/1981 12/9/1981 12/10/1981 12/11/1981 12/12/1981 12/13/1981 12/14/1981 12/15/1981 12/16/1981 12/17/1981 12/18/1981 12/19/1981 12/20/1981 12/21/1981 12/22/1981 12/23/1981 12/24/1981 12/25/1981 12/26/1981 12/27/1981 12/28/1981 12/29/1981 12/30/1981 12/31/1981

638 520 470 630 610 600 710 700 540 410 460 610 640 500 330 390 400 450 430 500 450 400 416 380 370 350 330 320 310 280 260

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

638 520 470 630 610 600 442 432 540 410 460 610 640 500 330 390 400 450 430 500 450 400 416 380 370 350 330 320 310 280 0

89.1 92.6 92.2 89.5 90.5 90.9 91.6 91.2 92.4 90.4 92.0 90.5 88.9 92.6 85.4 89.4 89.9 91.8 91.2 92.6 91.8 89.9 90.6 88.8 88.2 86.9 85.4 84.6 83.7 80.9 0.0

89.83 627.2 89.83 531.5 89.83 478.6 89.83 622.4 89.83 609.1 89.83 601.8 89.83 446.8 89.83 435.1 89.83 551.0 89.83 409.0 89.83 467.4 89.83 609.1 89.83 628.4 89.83 511.0 89.83 311.1 89.83 384.9 89.83 397.0 89.83 456.0 89.83 432.8 89.83 511.0 89.83 456.0 89.83 397.0 89.83 416.2 89.83 372.7 89.83 360.4 89.83 335.8 89.83 311.1 89.83 298.8 89.83 286.5 89.83 250.0 89.83 0.0 Total- December 1981

15,053.2 12,756.7 11,486.4 14,936.8 14,618.0 14,444.2 10,722.8 10,443.0 13,223.3 9,816.5 11,217.4 14,618.0 15,081.2 12,265.0 7,466.9 9,236.7 9,527.6 10,944.2 10,386.6 12,265.0 10,944.2 9,527.6 9,988.7 8,944.0 8,649.9 8,059.1 7,466.9 7,171.2 6,876.2 5,999.1 0.0 324,136.4

0 0 0 0 0 0 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,306.2

15,053.2 12,756.7 11,486.4 14,936.8 14,618.0 14,444.2 16,375.9 16,096.1 13,223.3 9,816.5 11,217.4 14,618.0 15,081.2 12,265.0 7,466.9 9,236.7 9,527.6 10,944.2 10,386.6 12,265.0 10,944.2 9,527.6 9,988.7 8,944.0 8,649.9 8,059.1 7,466.9 7,171.2 6,876.2 5,999.1 0.0 335,442.6

(continued)

627.2 531.5 478.6 622.4 609.1 601.8 682.3 670.7 551.0 409.0 467.4 609.1 628.4 511.0 311.1 384.9 397.0 456.0 432.8 511.0 456.0 397.0 416.2 372.7 360.4 335.8 311.1 298.8 286.5 250.0 0.0

332

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

1/1/1982 1/2/1982 1/3/1982 1/4/1982 1/5/1982 1/6/1982 1/7/1982 1/8/1982 1/9/1982 1/10/1982 1/11/1982 1/12/1982 1/13/1982 1/14/1982 1/15/1982 1/16/1982 1/17/1982 1/18/1982 1/19/1982 1/20/1982 1/21/1982 1/22/1982 1/23/1982 1/24/1982 1/25/1982 1/26/1982 1/27/1982 1/28/1982 1/29/1982 1/30/1982 1/31/1982

250 245 240 250 240 230 220 210 200 180 180 190 180 168 165 160 162 165 165 165 168 172 160 140 125 125 128 135 148 146 140

(Continued)

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 Total- January 1982

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

333

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

2/1/1982 2/2/1982 2/3/1982 2/4/1982 2/5/1982 2/6/1982 2/7/1982 2/8/1982 2/9/1982 2/10/1982 2/11/1982 2/12/1982 2/13/1982 2/14/1982 2/15/1982 2/16/1982 2/17/1982 2/18/1982 2/19/1982 2/20/1982 2/21/1982 2/22/1982 2/23/1982 2/24/1982 2/25/1982 2/26/1982 2/27/1982 2/28/1982

140 146 140 138 142 135 140 145 138 134 136 140 142 148 160 170 175 180 230 235 430 880 2250 2650 3100 3420 3600 3500

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430 612 670 670 670 670 670 670

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.2 90.4 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 0.0 89.83 432.8 89.83 610.5 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- February 1982

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,386.6 14,651.6 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 117,739.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 670 670 670 670 670 670

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 98,354.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,386.6 20,304.7 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 216,093.2

(continued)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 432.8 846.0 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

334

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

3/1/1982 3/2/1982 3/3/1982 3/4/1982 3/5/1982 3/6/1982 3/7/1982 3/8/1982 3/9/1982 3/10/1982 3/11/1982 3/12/1982 3/13/1982 3/14/1982 3/15/1982 3/16/1982 3/17/1982 3/18/1982 3/19/1982 3/20/1982 3/21/1982 3/22/1982 3/23/1982 3/24/1982 3/25/1982 3/26/1982 3/27/1982 3/28/1982 3/29/1982 3/30/1982 3/31/1982

3700 3350 3100 2800 2700 2520 2320 2200 2000 2000 2140 2390 2540 2860 3060 3180 3060 3280 4740 6860 7190 6790 6040 5420 4960 4470 4090 3660 3390 3150 2960

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- March 1982

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

335

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

4/1/1982 4/2/1982 4/3/1982 4/4/1982 4/5/1982 4/6/1982 4/7/1982 4/8/1982 4/9/1982 4/10/1982 4/11/1982 4/12/1982 4/13/1982 4/14/1982 4/15/1982 4/16/1982 4/17/1982 4/18/1982 4/19/1982 4/20/1982 4/21/1982 4/22/1982 4/23/1982 4/24/1982 4/25/1982 4/26/1982 4/27/1982 4/28/1982 4/29/1982 4/30/1982

2800 2700 2830 2640 3080 3090 2940 2820 2820 2810 2950 3250 3360 3220 3280 4820 4710 4550 4410 4270 4030 3800 3590 3420 3170 2900 2650 2450 2290 2160

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- April 1982

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 927,009.5

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

336

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

5/1/1982 5/2/1982 5/3/1982 5/4/1982 5/5/1982 5/6/1982 5/7/1982 5/8/1982 5/9/1982 5/10/1982 5/11/1982 5/12/1982 5/13/1982 5/14/1982 5/15/1982 5/16/1982 5/17/1982 5/18/1982 5/19/1982 5/20/1982 5/21/1982 5/22/1982 5/23/1982 5/24/1982 5/25/1982 5/26/1982 5/27/1982 5/28/1982 5/29/1982 5/30/1982 5/31/1982

1970 1870 1810 1760 2030 2710 3180 3190 3070 2880 2720 2970 3680 4370 5020 5930 6000 6490 6190 6360 6510 6650 6290 5870 5430 7490 8950 8790 8200 7290 6560

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- May 1982

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

337

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

6/1/1982 6/2/1982 6/3/1982 6/4/1982 6/5/1982 6/6/1982 6/7/1982 6/8/1982 6/9/1982 6/10/1982 6/11/1982 6/12/1982 6/13/1982 6/14/1982 6/15/1982 6/16/1982 6/17/1982 6/18/1982 6/19/1982 6/20/1982 6/21/1982 6/22/1982 6/23/1982 6/24/1982 6/25/1982 6/26/1982 6/27/1982 6/28/1982 6/29/1982 6/30/1982

6040 5580 5100 4680 4300 4180 4210 5250 6230 6160 5800 5450 5040 4610 4330 3890 3680 3480 3410 3400 3330 3180 3000 2800 2690 2760 2640 2480 2290 2160

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- June 1982 463,504.8

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 927,009.5

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

338

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

7/1/1982 7/2/1982 7/3/1982 7/4/1982 7/5/1982 7/6/1982 7/7/1982 7/8/1982 7/9/1982 7/10/1982 7/11/1982 7/12/1982 7/13/1982 7/14/1982 7/15/1982 7/16/1982 7/17/1982 7/18/1982 7/19/1982 7/20/1982 7/21/1982 7/22/1982 7/23/1982 7/24/1982 7/25/1982 7/26/1982 7/27/1982 7/28/1982 7/29/1982 7/30/1982 7/31/1982

2000 1860 1760 1640 1510 1680 3780 4430 5420 8370 9310 9110 7760 6410 5470 4760 4230 4850 4220 3680 3460 3200 2840 2560 2280 2000 1820 1800 1850 1780 1580

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- July 1982 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

339

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

8/1/1982 8/2/1982 8/3/1982 8/4/1982 8/5/1982 8/6/1982 8/7/1982 8/8/1982 8/9/1982 8/10/1982 8/11/1982 8/12/1982 8/13/1982 8/14/1982 8/15/1982 8/16/1982 8/17/1982 8/18/1982 8/19/1982 8/20/1982 8/21/1982 8/22/1982 8/23/1982 8/24/1982 8/25/1982 8/26/1982 8/27/1982 8/28/1982 8/29/1982 8/30/1982 8/31/1982

1390 1260 1100 1090 1060 1080 1080 1100 985 897 817 751 754 694 670 620 586 554 520 495 462 448 427 421 403 405 409 389 423 478 601

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

670 590 430 420 390 410 410 430 315 629 549 483 486 426 670 620 586 554 520 495 462 448 427 421 403 405 409 389 423 478 601

87.0 91.2 91.2 90.8 89.4 90.4 90.4 91.2 84.2 89.5 92.3 92.4 92.5 91.0 87.0 90.0 91.4 92.2 92.6 92.6 92.1 91.7 91.1 90.8 90.1 90.1 90.3 89.3 90.9 92.4 90.8

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 594.2 14,261.4 89.83 432.8 10,386.6 89.83 421.0 10,102.9 89.83 384.9 9,236.7 89.83 409.0 9,816.5 89.83 409.0 9,816.5 89.83 432.8 10,386.6 89.83 292.7 7,023.6 89.83 621.7 14,921.8 89.83 559.3 13,424.3 89.83 492.9 11,829.4 89.83 496.1 11,907.3 89.83 428.1 10,273.5 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 615.9 14,782.3 89.83 591.1 14,185.8 89.83 563.9 13,533.4 89.83 531.5 12,756.7 89.83 505.8 12,138.4 89.83 469.6 11,271.5 89.83 453.7 10,889.1 89.83 429.2 10,301.8 89.83 422.1 10,131.4 89.83 400.6 9,614.5 89.83 403.0 9,672.3 89.83 407.8 9,787.7 89.83 383.6 9,207.5 89.83 424.5 10,188.3 89.83 487.4 11,698.4 89.83 602.6 14,462.0 Total- August 1982 358,908.7

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 167,316.9

30,900.3 29,711.6 25,836.8 25,553.1 24,686.8 25,266.7 25,266.7 25,836.8 22,473.8 20,574.9 19,077.4 17,482.5 17,560.4 15,926.6 15,450.2 14,782.3 14,185.8 13,533.4 12,756.7 12,138.4 11,271.5 10,889.1 10,301.8 10,131.4 9,614.5 9,672.3 9,787.7 9,207.5 10,188.3 11,698.4 14,462.0 526,225.6

(continued)

1,287.5 1,238.0 1,076.5 1,064.7 1,028.6 1,052.8 1,052.8 1,076.5 936.4 857.3 794.9 728.4 731.7 663.6 643.8 615.9 591.1 563.9 531.5 505.8 469.6 453.7 429.2 422.1 400.6 403.0 407.8 383.6 424.5 487.4 602.6

340

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

10/1/1982 10/2/1982 10/3/1982 10/4/1982 10/5/1982 10/6/1982 10/7/1982 10/8/1982 10/9/1982 10/10/1982 10/11/1982 10/12/1982 10/13/1982 10/14/1982 10/15/1982 10/16/1982 10/17/1982 10/18/1982 10/19/1982 10/20/1982 10/21/1982 10/22/1982 10/23/1982 10/24/1982 10/25/1982 10/26/1982 10/27/1982 10/28/1982 10/29/1982 10/30/1982 10/31/1982

2560 4250 5310 5980 5910 5460 5010 4710 4840 5440 5700 5570 5270 4890 4560 4230 3950 3740 3660 3820 4460 4800 4770 4610 4440 4290 4130 4000 3860 3680 3510

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- October 1982 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

341

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

11/1/1982 11/2/1982 11/3/1982 11/4/1982 11/5/1982 11/6/1982 11/7/1982 11/8/1982 11/9/1982 11/10/1982 11/11/1982 11/12/1982 11/13/1982 11/14/1982 11/15/1982 11/16/1982 11/17/1982 11/18/1982 11/19/1982 11/20/1982 11/21/1982 11/22/1982 11/23/1982 11/24/1982 11/25/1982 11/26/1982 11/27/1982 11/28/1982 11/29/1982 11/30/1982

3380 3250 3020 2940 2810 2690 2610 2510 2460 2780 4190 6210 7160 7060 6740 6320 5900 5620 5500 5410 5340 5200 5020 4780 4550 4260 3810 3920 4010 3960

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- November 1982 463,504.8

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 927,009.5

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

342

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

12/17/1982 12/18/1982 12/19/1982 12/20/1982 12/21/1982 12/22/1982 12/23/1982 12/24/1982 12/25/1982 12/26/1982 12/27/1982 12/28/1982 12/29/1982 12/30/1982 12/31/1982

12/1/1982 12/2/1982 12/3/1982 12/4/1982 12/5/1982 12/6/1982 12/7/1982 12/8/1982 12/9/1982 12/10/1982 12/11/1982 12/12/1982 12/13/1982 12/14/1982 12/15/1982 12/16/1982

3230 3200 3180 3010 2760 2640 2660 2910 4160 5710 5990 5680 3840 3900 4190

3940 4010 4140 4260 4510 4610 4510 4220 3580 3280 2920 2430 2270 2740 3010 3160

(Continued)

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

TABLE 12.13

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- December 1982 478,954.9

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3

343

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

1/1/1983 1/2/1983 1/3/1983 1/4/1983 1/5/1983 1/6/1983 1/7/1983 1/8/1983 1/9/1983 1/10/1983 1/11/1983 1/12/1983 1/13/1983 1/14/1983 1/15/1983 1/16/1983 1/17/1983 1/18/1983 1/19/1983 1/20/1983 1/21/1983 1/22/1983 1/23/1983 1/24/1983 1/25/1983 1/26/1983 1/27/1983 1/28/1983 1/29/1983 1/30/1983 1/31/1983

3970 3940 3640 3640 3480 3420 3240 2980 2980 2960 2600 1800 2260 2300 2000 1720 1660 1600 1700 1760 1800 1840 1760 1630 1500 1330 1150 1260 1500 1360 1190

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 660 480 590 670 670 520

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.7 92.4 91.2 87.0 87.0 92.6

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 639.1 15,338.3 89.83 489.6 11,750.9 89.83 594.2 14,261.4 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 531.5 12,756.7 Total- January 1983 471,261.6

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,282.9 1,133.4 1,238.0 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,175.3

(continued)

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,788.4 27,201.1 29,711.6 30,900.3 30,900.3 28,206.8 950,216.5

344

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

2/1/1983 2/2/1983 2/3/1983 2/4/1983 2/5/1983 2/6/1983 2/7/1983 2/8/1983 2/9/1983 2/10/1983 2/11/1983 2/12/1983 2/13/1983 2/14/1983 2/15/1983 2/16/1983 2/17/1983 2/18/1983 2/19/1983 2/20/1983 2/21/1983 2/22/1983 2/23/1983 2/24/1983 2/25/1983 2/26/1983 2/27/1983 2/28/1983

1150 1210 981 854 955 929 866 866 877 880 883 886 890 929 1320 2120 2980 3500 5200 7790 8350 9670 10300 11700 11100 10200 10100 10800

(Continued)

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

480 540 311 586 285 661 598 598 609 612 615 618 622 661 650 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

92.4 92.4 83.8 91.4 81.4 87.7 90.9 90.9 90.5 90.4 90.2 90.1 89.9 87.7 88.4 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 489.6 89.83 551.0 89.83 287.7 89.83 591.1 89.83 256.0 89.83 639.6 89.83 600.3 89.83 600.3 89.83 608.4 89.83 610.5 89.83 612.6 89.83 614.6 89.83 617.3 89.83 639.6 89.83 634.0 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- February 1983

11,750.9 13,223.3 6,905.7 14,185.8 6,144.2 15,350.0 14,408.4 14,408.4 14,601.0 14,651.6 14,701.3 14,750.2 14,814.0 15,350.0 15,215.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 401,312.0

670 670 670 268 670 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 334,633.8

1,133.4 1,194.7 931.5 826.6 899.8 875.1 835.9 835.9 843.9 846.0 848.1 850.1 852.8 875.1 1,277.7 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

27,201.1 28,673.4 22,355.8 19,838.9 21,594.4 21,003.0 20,061.5 20,061.5 20,254.1 20,304.7 20,354.4 20,403.3 20,467.1 21,003.0 30,665.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 735,945.8

345

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

3/1/1983 3/2/1983 3/3/1983 3/4/1983 3/5/1983 3/6/1983 3/7/1983 3/8/1983 3/9/1983 3/10/1983 3/11/1983 3/12/1983 3/13/1983 3/14/1983 3/15/1983 3/16/1983 3/17/1983 3/18/1983 3/19/1983 3/20/1983 3/21/1983 3/22/1983 3/23/1983 3/24/1983 3/25/1983 3/26/1983 3/27/1983 3/28/1983 3/29/1983 3/30/1983 3/31/1983

10900 11100 11400 11500 11900 14600 18100 17800 15300 13600 12500 12000 11500 10700 10400 12000 13200 12800 12200 11500 10600 9810 9090 8520 8000 7640 6920 6460 6690 6630 7890

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- March 1983

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

346

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

4/1/1983 4/2/1983 4/3/1983 4/4/1983 4/5/1983 4/6/1983 4/7/1983 4/8/1983 4/9/1983 4/10/1983 4/11/1983 4/12/1983 4/13/1983 4/14/1983 4/15/1983 4/16/1983 4/17/1983 4/18/1983 4/19/1983 4/20/1983 4/21/1983 4/22/1983 4/23/1983 4/24/1983 4/25/1983 4/26/1983 4/27/1983 4/28/1983 4/29/1983 4/30/1983

10100 11300 11700 11600 11200 11400 11700 11600 11600 11900 12500 13100 15400 17800 18000 19100 19300 18300 17300 16200 15100 14100 13400 12600 11900 11200 10500 9820 9260 8730

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- April 1983

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 927,009.5

347

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

5/1/1983 5/2/1983 5/3/1983 5/4/1983 5/5/1983 5/6/1983 5/7/1983 5/8/1983 5/9/1983 5/10/1983 5/11/1983 5/12/1983 5/13/1983 5/14/1983 5/15/1983 5/16/1983 5/17/1983 5/18/1983 5/19/1983 5/20/1983 5/21/1983 5/22/1983 5/23/1983 5/24/1983 5/25/1983 5/26/1983 5/27/1983 5/28/1983 5/29/1983 5/30/1983 5/31/1983

8440 8970 10600 10800 10300 9890 9790 9140 8470 7870 7550 7340 7290 7220 7150 7050 6930 7120 7990 8300 7840 7340 6790 6350 5920 5610 5480 5140 4780 4510 4340

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- May 1983

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

348

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

6/1/1983 6/2/1983 6/3/1983 6/4/1983 6/5/1983 6/6/1983 6/7/1983 6/8/1983 6/9/1983 6/10/1983 6/11/1983 6/12/1983 6/13/1983 6/14/1983 6/15/1983 6/16/1983 6/17/1983 6/18/1983 6/19/1983 6/20/1983 6/21/1983 6/22/1983 6/23/1983 6/24/1983 6/25/1983 6/26/1983 6/27/1983 6/28/1983 6/29/1983 6/30/1983

4150 3980 3830 3670 3500 3330 3170 3020 2880 2710 2500 2450 2380 3200 4900 5420 5170 5230 5540 6410 9260 11600 10700 9830 9160 8660 8730 9280 9840 11100

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- June 1983 463,504.8

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 927,009.5

349

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

7/1/1983 7/2/1983 7/3/1983 7/4/1983 7/5/1983 7/6/1983 7/7/1983 7/8/1983 7/9/1983 7/10/1983 7/11/1983 7/12/1983 7/13/1983 7/14/1983 7/15/1983 7/16/1983 7/17/1983 7/18/1983 7/19/1983 7/20/1983 7/21/1983 7/22/1983 7/23/1983 7/24/1983 7/25/1983 7/26/1983 7/27/1983 7/28/1983 7/29/1983 7/30/1983 7/31/1983

13200 16200 19300 17900 15800 14100 12700 11700 10900 10400 9940 9400 8630 7910 7220 6620 6020 5590 5270 4870 4470 4010 3820 3640 3500 3270 3060 2900 2720 2550 2370

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- July 1983 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

350

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

8/1/1983 8/2/1983 8/3/1983 8/4/1983 8/5/1983 8/6/1983 8/7/1983 8/8/1983 8/9/1983 8/10/1983 8/11/1983 8/12/1983 8/13/1983 8/14/1983 8/15/1983 8/16/1983 8/17/1983 8/18/1983 8/19/1983 8/20/1983 8/21/1983 8/22/1983 8/23/1983 8/24/1983 8/25/1983 8/26/1983 8/27/1983 8/28/1983 8/29/1983 8/30/1983 8/31/1983

2160 1970 1830 1690 1530 1430 1330 1220 1110 1040 964 894 849 814 771 735 701 664 636 611 634 621 591 567 554 547 774 764 650 636 588

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

670 670 670 670 670 670 660 550 440 370 294 626 581 546 503 467 433 664 636 611 634 621 591 567 554 547 506 496 650 636 588

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.7 92.3 91.5 88.2 82.3 89.7 91.5 92.3 92.6 92.2 91.3 87.5 89.2 90.4 89.3 89.9 91.2 91.9 92.2 92.3 92.6 92.6 88.4 89.2 91.3

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 639.1 15,338.3 89.83 560.3 13,446.2 89.83 444.5 10,667.1 89.83 360.4 8,649.9 89.83 266.9 6,406.6 89.83 619.8 14,876.2 89.83 587.1 14,089.4 89.83 556.6 13,357.9 89.83 514.2 12,340.2 89.83 475.3 11,406.2 89.83 436.3 10,471.1 89.83 641.0 15,384.4 89.83 626.0 15,024.7 89.83 609.8 14,634.8 89.83 624.8 14,995.8 89.83 616.6 14,798.2 89.83 595.0 14,280.1 89.83 575.3 13,808.3 89.83 563.9 13,533.4 89.83 557.5 13,380.1 89.83 517.3 12,415.0 89.83 506.8 12,163.9 89.83 634.0 15,215.2 89.83 626.0 15,024.7 89.83 592.7 14,223.8 Total- August 1983 422,632.5

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 268 0 0 0

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 215,176.5

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,282.9 1,204.0 1,088.2 1,004.2 910.7 855.4 822.6 792.1 749.7 710.8 671.8 641.0 626.0 609.8 624.8 616.6 595.0 575.3 563.9 557.5 752.8 742.4 634.0 626.0 592.7

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,788.4 28,896.4 26,117.3 24,100.1 21,856.8 20,529.3 19,742.5 19,011.0 17,993.3 17,059.3 16,124.2 15,384.4 15,024.7 14,634.8 14,995.8 14,798.2 14,280.1 13,808.3 13,533.4 13,380.1 18,068.0 17,817.0 15,215.2 15,024.7 14,223.8 637,809.0

351

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

9/1/1983 9/2/1983 9/3/1983 9/4/1983 9/5/1983 9/6/1983 9/7/1983 9/8/1983 9/9/1983 9/10/1983 9/11/1983 9/12/1983 9/13/1983 9/14/1983 9/15/1983 9/16/1983 9/17/1983 9/18/1983 9/19/1983 9/20/1983 9/21/1983 9/22/1983 9/23/1983 9/24/1983 9/25/1983 9/26/1983 9/27/1983 9/28/1983 9/29/1983 9/30/1983

569 542 516 491 488 552 532 489 465 465 444 426 408 398 431 427 426 453 742 2210 2790 2170 1650 1360 1180 1040 932 849 799 795

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

569 542 516 491 488 552 532 489 465 465 444 426 408 398 431 427 426 453 474 670 670 670 670 670 510 370 664 581 531 527

91.9 92.4 92.6 92.5 92.5 92.2 92.5 92.5 92.2 92.2 91.6 91.0 90.3 89.8 91.2 91.1 91.0 91.9 92.3 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 92.6 88.2 87.5 91.5 92.5 92.6

89.83 577.1 13,849.4 89.83 552.9 13,268.4 89.83 527.5 12,660.3 89.83 501.5 12,036.3 89.83 498.3 11,959.1 89.83 562.1 13,490.0 89.83 543.3 13,039.8 89.83 499.4 11,984.8 89.83 473.0 11,352.5 89.83 473.0 11,352.5 89.83 449.1 10,778.4 89.83 428.1 10,273.5 89.83 406.6 9,758.9 89.83 394.6 9,469.6 89.83 433.9 10,414.8 89.83 429.2 10,301.8 89.83 428.1 10,273.5 89.83 459.4 11,026.6 89.83 483.0 11,592.8 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 521.4 12,513.8 89.83 360.4 8,649.9 89.83 641.0 15,384.4 89.83 587.1 14,089.4 89.83 542.4 13,016.6 89.83 538.5 12,923.0 Total- September 1983 372,710.6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 136,416.6

13,849.4 13,268.4 12,660.3 12,036.3 11,959.1 13,490.0 13,039.8 11,984.8 11,352.5 11,352.5 10,778.4 10,273.5 9,758.9 9,469.6 10,414.8 10,301.8 10,273.5 11,026.6 17,245.9 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 27,963.9 24,100.1 21,037.5 19,742.5 18,669.7 18,576.1 509,127.2

(continued)

577.1 552.9 527.5 501.5 498.3 562.1 543.3 499.4 473.0 473.0 449.1 428.1 406.6 394.6 433.9 429.2 428.1 459.4 718.6 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,165.2 1,004.2 876.6 822.6 777.9 774.0

352

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

10/1/1983 10/2/1983 10/3/1983 10/4/1983 10/5/1983 10/6/1983 10/7/1983 10/8/1983 10/9/1983 10/10/1983 10/11/1983 10/12/1983 10/13/1983 10/14/1983 10/15/1983 10/16/1983 10/17/1983 10/18/1983 10/19/1983 10/20/1983 10/21/1983 10/22/1983 10/23/1983 10/24/1983 10/25/1983 10/26/1983 10/27/1983 10/28/1983 10/29/1983 10/30/1983 10/31/1983

824 806 848 783 749 706 668 641 612 603 893 1210 1420 1360 1260 1150 1060 990 1220 1600 1750 1790 1720 1630 1510 1410 1340 1260 1150 1080 1050

(Continued)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

556 538 580 515 481 438 668 641 612 603 625 540 670 670 590 480 390 320 550 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 590 480 410 380

92.2 92.5 91.6 92.6 92.4 91.4 87.2 88.9 90.4 90.7 89.8 92.4 87.0 87.0 91.2 92.4 89.4 84.6 92.3 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 91.2 92.4 90.4 88.8

89.83 565.7 13,576.5 89.83 549.1 13,177.8 89.83 586.2 14,069.8 89.83 526.5 12,636.0 89.83 490.7 11,777.1 89.83 442.1 10,611.3 89.83 642.9 15,428.7 89.83 629.0 15,095.1 89.83 610.5 14,651.6 89.83 604.1 14,497.3 89.83 619.2 14,860.8 89.83 551.0 13,223.3 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 594.2 14,261.4 89.83 489.6 11,750.9 89.83 384.9 9,236.7 89.83 298.8 7,171.2 89.83 560.3 13,446.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 594.2 14,261.4 89.83 489.6 11,750.9 89.83 409.0 9,816.5 89.83 372.7 8,944.0 Total- October 1983 418,746.3

268 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 348,574.9

801.2 784.6 821.8 762.0 726.3 677.7 642.9 629.0 610.5 604.1 854.7 1,194.7 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,238.0 1,133.4 1,028.6 942.6 1,204.0 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,238.0 1,133.4 1,052.8 1,016.4

19,229.6 18,830.9 19,722.9 18,289.1 17,430.2 16,264.4 15,428.7 15,095.1 14,651.6 14,497.3 20,513.9 28,673.4 30,900.3 30,900.3 29,711.6 27,201.1 24,686.8 22,621.4 28,896.4 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 29,711.6 27,201.1 25,266.7 24,394.2 767,321.1

353

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

11/1/1983 11/2/1983 11/3/1983 11/4/1983 11/5/1983 11/6/1983 11/7/1983 11/8/1983 11/9/1983 11/10/1983 11/11/1983 11/12/1983 11/13/1983 11/14/1983 11/15/1983 11/16/1983 11/17/1983 11/18/1983 11/19/1983 11/20/1983 11/21/1983 11/22/1983 11/23/1983 11/24/1983 11/25/1983 11/26/1983 11/27/1983 11/28/1983 11/29/1983 11/30/1983

1030 998 967 988 1500 1600 1440 1340 1380 1620 1920 1890 1790 1840 2330 2600 2480 2390 2420 2870 3270 3180 3190 3110 2830 2550 2490 2220 1640 1800

1

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

360 328 297 318 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.6 85.2 82.5 84.4 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 348.1 8,354.9 89.83 308.7 7,407.7 89.83 270.6 6,494.4 89.83 296.3 7,112.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 Total- November 1983 431,073.3

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 463,504.8

23,805.0 22,857.9 21,944.6 22,562.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 894,578.0

(continued)

991.9 952.4 914.4 940.1 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

354

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

12/1/1983 12/2/1983 12/3/1983 12/4/1983 12/5/1983 12/6/1983 12/7/1983 12/8/1983 12/9/1983 12/10/1983 12/11/1983 12/12/1983 12/13/1983 12/14/1983 12/15/1983 12/16/1983 12/17/1983 12/18/1983 12/19/1983 12/20/1983 12/21/1983 12/22/1983 12/23/1983 12/24/1983 12/25/1983 12/26/1983 12/27/1983 12/28/1983 12/29/1983 12/30/1983 12/31/1983

1900 1950 1950 1900 1800 1650 1450 1300 1100 900 850 800 770 740 730 720 730 750 770 800 830 860 880 890 890 890 890 890 890 890 900

(Continued)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 630 430 632 582 532 502 472 462 452 462 482 502 532 562 592 612 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 632

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 89.5 91.2 89.4 91.5 92.5 92.6 92.3 92.1 91.9 92.1 92.4 92.6 92.5 92.0 91.2 90.4 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.4

89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 622.4 14,936.8 89.83 432.8 10,386.6 89.83 623.6 14,966.5 89.83 587.9 14,108.8 89.83 543.3 13,039.8 89.83 513.1 12,315.2 89.83 480.8 11,539.7 89.83 469.6 11,271.5 89.83 458.3 10,999.1 89.83 469.6 11,271.5 89.83 491.8 11,803.3 89.83 513.1 12,315.2 89.83 543.3 13,039.8 89.83 571.0 13,704.1 89.83 595.8 14,298.7 89.83 610.5 14,651.6 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 617.3 14,814.0 89.83 623.6 14,966.5 Total- December 1983 431,464.1

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 263,419.6

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,266.1 1,076.5 859.2 823.4 778.9 748.7 716.4 705.2 693.8 705.2 727.3 748.7 778.9 806.6 831.3 846.0 852.8 852.8 852.8 852.8 852.8 852.8 852.8 859.2

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,387.0 25,836.8 20,619.6 19,761.9 18,692.9 17,968.3 17,192.8 16,924.6 16,652.2 16,924.6 17,456.4 17,968.3 18,692.9 19,357.2 19,951.8 20,304.7 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,467.1 20,619.6 694,883.6

355

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

1/1/1984 1/2/1984 1/3/1984 1/4/1984 1/5/1984 1/6/1984 1/7/1984 1/8/1984 1/9/1984 1/10/1984 1/11/1984 1/12/1984 1/13/1984 1/14/1984 1/15/1984 1/16/1984 1/17/1984 1/18/1984 1/19/1984 1/20/1984 1/21/1984 1/22/1984 1/23/1984 1/24/1984 1/25/1984 1/26/1984 1/27/1984 1/28/1984 1/29/1984 1/30/1984 1/31/1984

910 920 930 940 950 940 940 900 840 780 750 730 710 700 690 680 670 660 660 650 630 600 560 530 510 490 480 470 460 450 450

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

642 652 662 270 280 270 270 632 572 512 482 462 442 432 422 412 670 660 660 650 630 600 560 530 510 490 480 470 460 450 450

88.8 88.2 87.6 79.8 80.9 79.8 79.8 89.4 91.8 92.6 92.4 92.1 91.6 91.2 90.9 90.5 87.0 87.7 87.7 88.4 89.5 90.9 92.1 92.5 92.6 92.5 92.4 92.2 92.0 91.8 91.8

89.83 629.5 15,108.9 89.83 635.0 15,240.7 89.83 640.1 15,361.5 89.83 237.9 5,710.5 89.83 250.0 5,999.1 89.83 237.9 5,710.5 89.83 237.9 5,710.5 89.83 623.6 14,966.5 89.83 579.6 13,910.5 89.83 523.5 12,562.8 89.83 491.8 11,803.3 89.83 469.6 11,271.5 89.83 446.8 10,722.8 89.83 435.1 10,443.0 89.83 423.3 10,159.9 89.83 411.4 9,874.0 89.83 643.8 15,450.2 89.83 639.1 15,338.3 89.83 639.1 15,338.3 89.83 634.0 15,215.2 89.83 622.4 14,936.8 89.83 601.8 14,444.2 89.83 569.2 13,661.9 89.83 541.4 12,993.3 89.83 521.4 12,513.8 89.83 500.4 12,010.6 89.83 489.6 11,750.9 89.83 478.6 11,486.4 89.83 467.4 11,217.4 89.83 456.0 10,944.2 89.83 456.0 10,944.2 Total- January 1984 372,801.7

268 268 268 670 670 670 670 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

79.6 79.6 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 79.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

235.5 235.5 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 5,653.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 129,637.8

20,762.0 20,893.8 21,014.6 21,160.7 21,449.3 21,160.7 21,160.7 20,619.6 19,563.6 18,215.9 17,456.4 16,924.6 16,375.9 16,096.1 15,813.0 15,527.1 15,450.2 15,338.3 15,338.3 15,215.2 14,936.8 14,444.2 13,661.9 12,993.3 12,513.8 12,010.6 11,750.9 11,486.4 11,217.4 10,944.2 10,944.2 502,439.5

(continued)

865.1 870.6 875.6 881.7 893.7 881.7 881.7 859.2 815.2 759.0 727.3 705.2 682.3 670.7 658.9 647.0 643.8 639.1 639.1 634.0 622.4 601.8 569.2 541.4 521.4 500.4 489.6 478.6 467.4 456.0 456.0

356

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

2/1/1984 2/2/1984 2/3/1984 2/4/1984 2/5/1984 2/6/1984 2/7/1984 2/8/1984 2/9/1984 2/10/1984 2/11/1984 2/12/1984 2/13/1984 2/14/1984 2/15/1984 2/16/1984 2/17/1984 2/18/1984 2/19/1984 2/20/1984 2/21/1984 2/22/1984 2/23/1984 2/24/1984 2/25/1984 2/26/1984 2/27/1984 2/28/1984 2/29/1984

440 430 420 410 400 410 380 370 380 410 430 520 720 920 2200 5400 13000 10000 7400 6840 6880 8240 10100 9670 8990 8750 8540 7360 6190

(Continued)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

440 430 420 410 400 410 380 370 380 410 430 520 452 652 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

91.5 91.2 90.8 90.4 89.9 90.4 88.8 88.2 88.8 90.4 91.2 92.6 91.9 88.2 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 444.5 89.83 432.8 89.83 421.0 89.83 409.0 89.83 397.0 89.83 409.0 89.83 372.7 89.83 360.4 89.83 372.7 89.83 409.0 89.83 432.8 89.83 531.5 89.83 458.3 89.83 635.0 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- February 1984

10,667.1 10,386.6 10,102.9 9,816.5 9,527.6 9,816.5 8,944.0 8,649.9 8,944.0 9,816.5 10,386.6 12,756.7 10,999.1 15,240.7 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 377,807.1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 268 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.6 79.6 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 235.5 235.5 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,653.1 5,653.1 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 243,058.6

444.5 432.8 421.0 409.0 397.0 409.0 372.7 360.4 372.7 409.0 432.8 531.5 693.8 870.6 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

10,667.1 10,386.6 10,102.9 9,816.5 9,527.6 9,816.5 8,944.0 8,649.9 8,944.0 9,816.5 10,386.6 12,756.7 16,652.2 20,893.8 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 620,865.7

357

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

3/1/1984 3/2/1984 3/3/1984 3/4/1984 3/5/1984 3/6/1984 3/7/1984 3/8/1984 3/9/1984 3/10/1984 3/11/1984 3/12/1984 3/13/1984 3/14/1984 3/15/1984 3/16/1984 3/17/1984 3/18/1984 3/19/1984 3/20/1984 3/21/1984 3/22/1984 3/23/1984 3/24/1984 3/25/1984 3/26/1984 3/27/1984 3/28/1984 3/29/1984 3/30/1984 3/31/1984

5690 5120 4610 4330 4020 3380 2820 2600 2650 2300 2000 1900 2100 2250 2400 2600 2400 2200 2100 2080 2000 2260 3780 4930 5710 6520 6920 7350 7690 7710 7490

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 89.83 643.8 Total- March 1984

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 478,954.9

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 957,909.8

(continued)

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

358

USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS

4/1/1984 4/2/1984 4/3/1984 4/4/1984 4/5/1984 4/6/1984 4/7/1984 4/8/1984 4/9/1984 4/10/1984 4/11/1984 4/12/1984 4/13/1984 4/14/1984 4/15/1984 4/16/1984 4/17/1984 4/18/1984 4/19/1984 4/20/1984 4/21/1984 4/22/1984 4/23/1984 4/24/1984 4/25/1984

7190 6900 7090 8220 8840 8790 8870 9620 11400 12900 13100 13300 13900 14500 14800 14900 15200 15000 14100 13200 12400 12500 13400 13700 12500

(Continued)

5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500 5480500

TABLE 12.13

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2

670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670

87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0

89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83 89.83

643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8 643.8

15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2 15,450.2

1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5 1,287.5

30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3 30,900.3

HYDROELECTRIC MILL DAM: FORT DODGE, IOWA

359

From the computations tabulated from daily ﬂow data (Table 12.13), some examples will illustrate the computational process. Example 1: From Table 12.13, page 1, date 1/1/1981, run of river ﬂow is 198 cfs, i.e., Q ¼ 198. Testing this ﬂow with the ﬁve conditions: Condition 1

IF(198 < 268, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) TRUE; thus proceed with computations to next columns and with Q1 ¼ 0 cfs; then power from Turbine 1 is 0 kW and energy produced from Turbine 1 is 0 kWh; and with Q2 ¼ 0 cfs, the power for Turbine 2 is 0 kW and 0 kWh.

Example 2: Consider date, 2/17/1981, run of river ﬂow is 300 cfs. Testing this ﬂow with the ﬁve conditions: Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4

Condition 5

IF(Q < qmin, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) IF(300 < 268, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) FALSE IF(AND(Q qmin, Q qmax), Q1 ¼ Q, Q2 ¼ 0) IF(AND(300 268, 300 670, Q1 ¼ 300, Q2 ¼ 0) TRUE IF(AND(Q > qmax, Q qmax þ qmin), Q1 ¼ Q qmin, Q2 ¼ qmin IF(AND(300 > 670, 300 670 þ 268), Q1 ¼ 300 268, Q2 ¼ 268 FALSE IF(AND(Q > qmax þ qmin, Q qmax þ qmax), Q1 ¼ Q qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax IF(AND(300 > 670 þ 268, 300 670 þ 268), Q1 ¼ 300 670, Q2 ¼ 670 FALSE IF(Q > qmax þ qmax, Q1 ¼ qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax) IF(300 > 670 þ 670, Q1 ¼ 670, Q2 ¼ 670) FALSE

Thus, computations are done according to Condition 2 being TRUE. Q1 ¼ 300 cfs; Et of Turbine 1 is 82.8% from the turbine efﬁciency table above at Q1 ¼ 300 cfs. Egtot is computed from the related electromechanical efﬁciencies present above as Egen Egear Etrans, which is (94.5/100 97.0/100 98.0/100 ¼ 0.8983). H ¼ 14.5 feet. From Equation (12.1), we have KW ¼ 300 cfs 14.5 feet 82.8/00 0.8983/ 11.8 ¼ 274.3 kW. For 24 hours in a day the energy production is 6,582 kWh from Turbine 1. Turbine-2 output is 0 kWh, since the ﬂow to this turbine is 0 cfs. Total energy from Turbines 1 and 2 ¼ 6,582 þ 0 ¼ 6,582 kWh. Example 3: Consider date, 6/3/1981, run of river ﬂow is 935 cfs. Testing this ﬂow with the ﬁve conditions: Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4

IF(Q < qmin, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) IF(935 < 268, Q1 ¼ 0, Q2 ¼ 0) FALSE IF(AND(Q qmin, Q qmax), Q1 ¼ Q, Q2 ¼ 0 IF(AND(935>¼268, 935 670, Q1 ¼ 935, Q2 ¼ 0) FALSE IF(AND(Q > qmax, Q qmax þ qmin), Q1 ¼ Q qmin, Q2 ¼ qmin IF(AND(935 > 670, 935 670 þ 268), Q1 ¼ 935 268, Q2 ¼ 268 TRUE IF(AND(Q > qmax þ qmin, Q qmax þ qmax), Q1 ¼ Q qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax IF(AND(935 > 670 þ 268, 935 670 þ 268), Q1 ¼ 935 670, Q2 ¼ 670 FALSE

360

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

Condition 5

IF(Q > qmax þ qmax, Q1 ¼ qmax, Q2 ¼ qmax) IF(935 > 670 þ 670, Q1 ¼ 670, Q2 ¼ 670) FALSE

Thus, computations are done according to Condition 3 being TRUE. Q1 ¼ 935 268 ¼ 667 cfs; Et of Turbine 1 is 87.3% from the turbine efﬁciency table above at Q1 ¼ 667 cfs. Q2 ¼ 268 cfs and Et of Turbine 2 is 79.6%.Egtot is computed from the related electromechanical efﬁciencies present above as Egen Egear Etrans, which is (94.5/100 97.0/100 98.0/100 ¼ 0.8983). H ¼ 14.5 feet. From Equation (12.1), we have for Turbine 1, KW ¼ 667 cfs 14.5 feet 87.3/ 100 0.8983/11.8 ¼ 642.4 kW. For 24 hours in a day, the energy production is 15,418 kWh from Turbine 1. From Equation (12.1), we have for Turbine 2, KW ¼ 268 cfs 14.5 feet 79.6/ 100 0.8983/11.8 ¼ 235.5 kW. For 24 hours in a day, the energy production is 5,652 kWh from Turbine 2.Total energy from Turbines 1 nd 2 ¼ 15,418 þ 5,652 ¼ 21,070 kWh. Computations like the above examples were done on all the daily ﬂow data from 01-01-1981 to 12-31-2000. Details are shown in spreadsheet in Table 12.13, Fort Dodge Mill Dam Flow and Production Computations, Fort Dodge, Iowa. A summary of energy production from the plant with monthly and annual production is shown in Table 12.12, Summary of Potential Energy Generation of Fort Dodge Mill Dam, Fort Dodge, Iowa, for the years 1981 to 2000. This summary table was generated by selecting the energy production (kWh) for a particular month and year from Table 12.13 and recording it in the proper place in Table 12.12. REFERENCES 1. Bunch, J., “Most Promising Source of Power, Wind, As Old As Civilization,” The Denver Post, April 20, 2003. 2. DeWitte, D., “Wind Farm Weathers Failure,” The Gazette, May 8, 2003. 3. GE Energy, 1.5 MW Series Wind Turbine, www.gepower.com, June 22, 2009. 4. U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Efﬁciency and Renewable Energy Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program, How Wind Turbines Work,” wwwl.eere.energy.gov, June 6, 2009. 5. Young, G. C., “Why Big Wind Wins Out,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, April 2004. 6. Young, G.C., “The Economics of Wind: Looking at MidAmerican Energy,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, August 2003. 7. Boshart, R., “Wind Plant to Generate Revenue,” The Gazette, March 26, 2003. 8. Private Communication, Dave Dewitte, The Gazette, April 22, 2003. 9. Phillips, C., “Private Communications, Financial and Economic Review,” Universal Electric Power, Inc., May 2003. 10. Sinclair, K., “A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis 1994-1997,” NREL/SR-500-26092, June 1999. 11. Hunt, W.G., Jackman, R.E., Hunt, T.L., Driscoll, D.E., and Culp, L., 1998, “A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend

REFERENCES

12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23.

361

Analysis,” 1997. Report To National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Subcontract XAT-616459-01. Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz, NREL/SR-500-26092, June 1999. Hunt, G., “Golden Eagles in a Perilous Landscape: Predicting the Effects of Mitigation for Wind Turbine Blade-Strike Mortality,” P500-02-043F, July 2002, www.energy.ca.gov. Sinclair, K.C., “Status of Avian Research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), NREL/CP-500-30546, September 2001. Hunt, G. and Hunt, T., “The Trend of Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy in the Vicinity of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: 2005 Survey,” California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2006-056, June 2006. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, Photographic Information Exchange, http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/, June 2009. USGS, “Sources of electricity in the USA 2006,” Data from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ electricity/epa/eapt1p1.html, 07/09/2009. USGS, “Hydroelectric Power,” http://ga.water.usgs/edu/wuhy.html, 07/09/2009. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & USGS, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/hyhowworks.html, 07/09/2009. Noyes, R., “Small And Micro Hydroelectric Power Plants, Technology and Feasibility,” Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, U.S.A., 1980. Energy Policy Act of 2005, 109th Congress, United States, July 27, 2005. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Payments for Speciﬁed Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits, U.S. Treasury Department, Ofﬁce of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, July 2009. Young, G.C., Rieck, K.V., and Phillips, C., “The Economics of Low-Head Dams,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, December 2005. Sinclair, D., “Private Communications,” Advanced Hydro Solutions, LLP, 2004.

CHAPTER 13

Waste Energy to Recycled Energy

INTRODUCTION Of interest today is the cost of energy and particularly the efforts to reduce energy costs by using less energy in a system. Many have studied the transfer of energy from one system to another. This ﬁeld of study is called thermodynamics. From the past studies, it was concluded that energy is conserved. Thus, energy can be transferred from one form to another or from one body to another body, but it is neither created nor destroyed. This conclusion was expressed as the ﬁrst law of thermodynamics or sometimes referring to as the law of conservation of energy. However in recent history, Einstein studied the interrelation of energy and mass and its application to the atomic energy ﬁeld and pointed out that energy is not conserved. However, in the normal chemical and physical processes, the loss or gain in mass is undetectable, and the independent conservation of mass and energy can be assumed with conﬁdence.1 The energy balance makes use of the “ﬁrst law of thermodynamics,” which states that energy is conserved, i.e., mass and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Consequently, an energy balance is typically determined about a boundary within a process, which is called the “system.” The area outside the system boundary is called the “surroundings.” The system and surroundings are therefore called the universe. Thus, the sum of the energy of the system and surroundings is constant, i.e., it remains conserved according to the ﬁrst law of thermodynamics. Therefore after the “system” is deﬁned by a boundary, the balance of energy entering the system across the boundary, the energy leaving the system across the boundary, and the accumulation of energy within the system is constant. The application of the ﬁrst law of thermodynamics regarding the energy about a boundary within a system can be determined by Equation (13.1). Energy In ¼ Energy Out þ Energy Accumulation

ð13:1Þ

The application, (Eq. (13.1)), of the ﬁrst law of thermodynamics about a boundary within a process describing a system is called an “energy balance” of the system. All

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

362

INTRODUCTION

363

forms of energy must be considered in the energy balance, which for a typical chemical process involving a ﬂow of ﬂuid can be kinetic energy (KE), potential energy (PE), internal energy (E), heat energy (Q), and work energy (W). Energy of a moving object is “kinetic” energy. “Potential” energy is determined by the position in the earth’s gravitational ﬁeld. The motion of molecules of a substance imparts internal energy within the substance and is called “internal” energy. The temperature of a material is a measure of its internal energy. The “second law of thermodynamics” states that for a process involving heat transfer alone, energy is only transferred from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. For a conventional ﬂow system at steady state, where accumulation is zero, Equation (13.1) becomes the energy balance for a system at steady state and is presented as Equation (13.2): Energy In ¼ Energy Out 0

E1 þ KE1 þ PE1 þ Q ¼ E2 þ KE2 þ PE2 þ W

0

ð13:2Þ

where subscripts 1 represents into the system and 2 represents out of the system. The primes designate heat and work removed from or appearing in the surroundings. Substitution of more speciﬁc terms per pound of ﬂuid into Equation (13.2) and rearranging as a difference, the result is: 0

DE þ DðPVÞ þ Dðv2 Þ=2gc þ Dzg=gc ¼ Q Ws

ð13:3Þ

where: P ¼ the force exerted upon the ﬂuid, V ¼ the speciﬁc volume of the ﬂuid, v ¼ velocity, z ¼ height above a reference level, Q0 ¼ heat energy neglecting loss due to frictional effects, Ws ¼ work neglecting loss due to frictional effects, gc ¼ dimensional conversion factor, and g ¼ acceleration of gravity. Equation (13.3) represents a typical expression of a total energy balance in a ﬂow system. By arranging a group as (E þ PV) and labeling enthalpy as (H), H becomes a state function much like E. Consequently, terms in Equation (13.3) become as follows: 0

DH þ Dðv2 Þ=2gc þ Dzg=gc ¼ Q Ws

ð13:4Þ

In chemical process applications, the changes in velocity and height are small; thus, the kinetic energy term, D(v2)/2gc, and the potential energy term, Dzg/gc, are

364

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

negligible, resulting in an energy balance. Equation (13.4) reduces to Equation (13.5): 0

DH ¼ Q Ws

ð13:5Þ

In a similar manner for a constant-pressure process, which is true for many systems in a chemical process, Equation (13.5) can be shown as: DH ¼ Q

0

ð13:6Þ

for which Equation (13.6) states that the increase in the enthalpy of a system in a constant-pressure process is equal to the heat added to the system. With many processes in the chemical industry as constant-pressure processes, Equation (13.6) will be shown as a useful tool in solving process energy problems. A precise and exceptional development of energy balance equations as applied to systems can be found in this reference.1 This educational material is priceless for the academic professional desiring a true understanding of energy balances and proper application to systems. Energy transferred between a system and the surroundings is either “heat” or “work.” Heat and work are considered energy in transit. Work depends upon the path followed by the system. Heat represents energy in transition under the inﬂuence of temperature differences. Energy ﬂows as “heat” from a hot body to a cold body. Heat is usually expressed in units of “Btu” or “gram-calorie.” When the various forms of energy are added algebraically for a total energy balance at steady state, i.e., for “no” accumulation, Equation (13.1) becomes “energy in” equals “energy out” and various energy terms can be rearranged and grouped together. In so doing, a group is placed together consisting of internal energy plus pressure times speciﬁc volume per unit mass of the system, which is called “enthalpy.” The enthalpy is a widely used function and is a state function. The usefulness of enthalpy is that for a constant-pressure process, the change in enthalpy is equal to the heat added to the system. Because so many constant-pressure processes are so common in chemical processes, the enthalpy function becomes important. The useful relationship therefore becomes Equation (13.6) and is used widely for solving many energy process problems. A more detailed and deﬁnitive understanding of the “energy balance” can be found in reference materials.1,2 The mass balance is based upon the “law of conservation of mass.” The “law of conservation of mass” states that mass can be neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the mass of a closed system must be constant or conserved. Mass can change form but the total mass must not be changed. From the “law of conservation of mass,” Equation (13.7) applies.1 Mass In ¼ Mass Out þ Mass Accumulation

ð13:7Þ

Many solutions in the industrial and chemical processes today are derived from the use of these laws: “law of conservation of mass,” “ﬁrst law of thermodynamics,” and “second law of thermodynamics.” A real and practical application using the “law of conservation of mass,” Equation (13.7), the “ﬁrst law of thermodynamics,”

INTRODUCTION

365

Equation (13.1), and “second law of thermodynamics,” will be illustrated involving the recovery and recycling of heat in a system. The heat investigated is atmospheric waste heat from a concentrator emitted into the atmosphere. The concentrator exists in a chemical plant. This concentrator is an agitated vessel with steam coils using plant boiler steam in the coils. The concentrator concentrates a stream for further use in the chemical process. The concentrator discharges about 9,000 lbs/hour of steam to the atmosphere at a temperature of about 212 F. This process information of the concentrator vessel operation was determined and known for years but without a solution. The problem was: What can be done with this low atmospheric pressure steam (0.0 psig, 14.7 psia) that is wasted to the atmosphere? A representation of the agitated concentrator is shown in Fig. 13.1. It had been concluded in the past by others for this particular chemical process plant that nothing could be done technically and/or economically with this atmospheric steam, i.e., low-pressure steam with essentially no pressure driving force to be used elsewhere in the plant. Assessing a process plant that is nearly 50 þ years old presents a challenge but is not daunting. The most difﬁcult aspect of the problem initially is the attitude of the vast majority of personnel at the plant; it has been investigated many times before in the past by others, both professionals and nonprofessionals, and concluded to be an “energy waste” problem with no solution. However one elderly chemist, a son of the founder of the original process and company, was unique in that he could discuss and accept technical process ideas based upon sound and scientiﬁc reasoning. In other words, he could, “think outside the box on scientiﬁc matters.” This was the key ingredient that the new process engineer needed, since he had much of the same technical characteristics. The new process engineer was experienced and a

Agitator Motor & Drive

Atmospheric Steam (Waste Heat) 9,000 lbs/hr at 14.7 psia (1 atm)

Stack

Agitated Concentrator Vessel

Concentrator Feed

Boiler Steam Supply Steam Condensate Return

Steam Coil Agitator Concentrator Discharge

FIGURE 13.1

Agitated Concentrator Vessel.

366

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

professional, i.e., this individual could be labeled respectfully as “the engineer.” Thus, the new process engineer had support from the top and could discuss freely on several occasions with this wise elderly son of the founder, i.e., label him with respect as a “chemist.” Thus, a true technical team had developed with the proper professional skills and management support for potential future success with a “can do” attitude. The team was simply composed of a “chemist” and an “engineer.” The chemist and engineer, who comprised the team, discussed the chemistry and process operations throughout the plant for several months. The engineer asked about operations with process streams at temperatures below the concentrator stack temperature of 212 F. After several months of discussions, one operation of the plant appeared to have some process streams at temperatures below 212 F. This operation is shown in Fig. 13.2 associated with the process liquor preheat vessel. Process streams come from the crystallizer operation, stream (1) and stream (2). Process liquor feed stream (1) is an aqueous stream at 129.2 F and at a ﬂow rate of 90 gallons per minute (GPM). Process liquor feed stream (2) is an aqueous stream at 96.8 F and at a ﬂow rate of 636 GPM. These two process liquor feed streams are heated in the agitated process liquor preheat vessel to a temperature of 111.2 F and are called the process discharge liquor. Note, the two process liquor feed streams are at temperatures below 212 F, which is the concentrator stack atmospheric steam temperature. With this process information, the next step was to do a further process evaluation to formulate a potential waste heat recovery system that was both technically and economically feasible. Referring to Fig. 13.2, a process evaluation will be done ﬁrst by determining a mass balance about the process liquor preheat vessel according to Equation (13.7). Secondly, an energy balance according to Equations (13.1) and (13.6) is done.

Agitator Motor & Drive

Process Liquor Feed Stream (1), 90 GPM at 129.2 oF Process Liquor Feed Stream (2), 636 GPM at 96.8 oF

Process Liquor Preheat Vessel

Boiler Steam Supply Steam Condensate Return

Steam Coil Agitator Heated Process Discharge Liquor, Returned to Process

FIGURE 13.2

Process Liquor Preheat Vessel.

INTRODUCTION

367

A mass balance using Equation (13.7) is conducted on numbered streams encircled as streams 5, 6, and 7 as shown in Fig. 13.3. The computations below illustrate the mass balance of the liquor streams entering and leaving this vessel to determine individual stream mass ﬂow rates: Qm ðlbs=hourÞ ¼ Qv 60 Sp:gr: 8:34

ð13:8Þ

where Qm ¼ mass ﬂow rate, lbs/hour Qv ¼ volumetric ﬂow rate, gallons/minute, 60 ¼ constant, minutes/hour, Sp.gr. ¼ speciﬁc gravity of liquid at about 68 F in reference to liquid water, 8.34 ¼ constant, lbs/gallon. Stream 5 is an aqueous stream having the properties: 90 GPM and 1.20 speciﬁc gravity. Substitution into Equation (13.8) yields the following: Qm of stream 5 ¼ 90 gallons=minute 60 minutes=hour 1:20 8:34 lbs=gallon ¼ 54; 043 lbs=hour For stream 6 with properties: 636 GPM and 1.20 speciﬁc gravity, substitution into Equation (13.8) yields: Qm of stream 6 ¼ 636 gallons=minute 60 minutes=hour 1:20 8:34 lbs=gallon ¼ 381; 905 lbs=hour From the mass balance about the process liquor streams 5, 6, and 7 as shown encircled in Fig. 13.3 and using the mass balance equation, Equation (13.7), at steady state whereby the accumulation is zero and stream 7 has a Sp.gr. of 1.20: Mass ðstream 5Þ þ Mass ðstream 6Þ ¼ Mass ðstream 7Þ Therefore, 54,043 lbs/hour þ 381,905 lbs/hour ¼ Qm (stream 7) 60 1.20 8.34 or, Qm (stream 7) ¼ 726 GPM or 435,948 lbs/hour. Secondly, the energy balance is computed according to Equations (13.1) and (13.6). According to Equation (13.6), the energy balance about the process liquor vessel shown by the encirclement of streams 5, 6, and 7 is: DH ðstream 5Þ þ DH ðstream 6Þ ¼ DH ðstream 7Þ

ð13:9Þ

For the aqueous streams, enthalpy change is computed by Equation (13.10). DH ðaqueous streamÞ ¼ Qm Cp ðTo Ti Þ

ð13:10Þ

where, DH (aqueous stream) ¼ enthalpy change of the aqueous stream, Btu/hour Cp ¼ heat capacity of the aqueous stream, Btu/lb- F

368

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

Agitated Concentrator Vessel

Atmospheric Steam (Waste Heat) at 14.7 psia (1 atm)

2

Agitator Motor & Drive

3 Stack 9,000 lbs/hr steam at 212 oF and 1 atm. 1 Concentrator Feed

Boiler Steam Supply

Steam Coil

Steam Condensate Return

Agitator Concentrator Discharge

Process Liquor Feed Stream (1), 90 GPM at 129.2oF

5 Agitator Motor & Drive 6 Process Liquor Preheat Vessel

Steam Supply

Process Liquor Feed Stream (2), 636 GPM at 96.8 oF

Steam Coil Agitator

Steam Condensate Return

FIGURE 13.3

4 7

Heated Process Discharge Liquor, Returned to Process

Waste Heat Recovery System (Concentrator Vessel and Preheat Vessel).

Ti ¼ inlet temperature of the aqueous stream To ¼ outlet temperature of the aqueous stream Consequently for stream 5 where the heat capacity is 1.0 Btu/lb- F, inlet temperature Ti is 129.2 F, and outlet temperature of 111.2 F, computations using Equation (13.10) become: DH ðstream 5Þ ¼ 54; 043 lbs=hour 1:0 Btu=lb- F ð111:2 F-129:2 FÞ ¼ 972; 774 Btu=hour For stream 6 where the heat capacity is 1.0 Btu/lb- F, inlet temperature Ti is 96.8 F, and outlet temperature is 111.2 F, enthalpy change computed by

INTRODUCTION

369

Equation (13.10) becomes: DH ðstream 6Þ ¼ 381; 905 lbs=hour 1:0 Btu=lb- F ð111:2 F-96:8 FÞ ¼ 5; 499; 432 Btu=hour Substituting into Equation (13.9), the enthalpy change about streams 5, 6, and 7 becomes: 5; 499; 432 Btu=hour þ ð972; 774Þ Btu=hour ¼ 4; 526; 658 Btu=hour From an overall energy balance about the process liquor preheat vessel, the change in enthalpy of streams 5, 6, and 7 equals the heat input from the boiler steam supply/ steam condensate as noted by stream 4 in Fig. 13.3. Thus, if the latent heat of condensation of the boiler steam to the steam coil in the process liquor preheat vessel is about 1,000 Btu/lb, then the estimate for the boiler steam supply to the coil is approximately:3 4; 526; 658 Btu=hour=1; 000 Btu=lb condensate ¼ 4; 527 lbs=hour ðcondensateÞ Thus, the steam supply to the process liquor preheat vessel is estimated to be 4,527 lbs/hour. With a supply of atmospheric steam from the concentrator stack at 9,000 lbs/hr, sufﬁcient steam is available from the concentrator stack, i.e., (surplus of 9,000 lbs/ hr–4,527 lbs hr ¼ 4,473 lbs/hour steam surplus). The surplus is important as will be discussed later. Also, the concentrator and the process liquor preheat units are in operation at the same time continuously. In conclusion from the preliminary energy recovery discussions and analysis, a recovery system is possible provided a technical and practical energy recovery system is developed for using the atmospheric waste heat from the concentrator stack to preheat the process liquor feed streams 5 and 6 to 111.2 F for return to the process as heated process discharge liquor, stream 7. Now, the question arises, can a heat recovery system be developed that can technically and economically recover the potential waste heat of about 4,526,658 lbs/ hr at 212 F and 1 atmosphere from the concentrator system and be used for the process liquor preheat system as envisioned in Fig. 13.3.? It helps to summarize what is known and what is not as follows: . .

.

Waste energy source (concentrator stack) has steam at 9,000 lbs/hour at 212 F and 1 atmosphere. Use for the waste energy source is potentially the process liquor preheat system requiring 4,526,658 Btu/hour steam to preheat mixed aqueous process streams, stream 5 at 90 GPM and 129.2 F and stream 6 at 636 GPM and 96.8 F, to a ﬁnal mixture, heated process discharge liquor, for return to the plant process at 111.2 F. The source of waste heat, concentrator vessel and end use of this waste heat, process liquor preheat vessel, are located at far ends and opposite to each other in the large plant.

370 .

.

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

Both the concentrator system and the preheat liquor system operate simultaneously and continuously so that waste heat supply and waste heat end use are fully compatible. Finally, what heat recovery system, both technically and economically, can be developed as illustrated in Fig. 13.3 when the waste heat steam supply at atmospheric pressure is to be used by another operation at considerable distance from the low-pressure steam source?

After considerable thought, the engineer went through the following analyses to determine the technical feasibility for the waste heat process described in Fig. 13.3. 1. What size of steam coil is required for the process liquor preheat vessel and, in addition, will it ﬁt into that vessel? a. Determine the overall heat transfer coefﬁcient for the steam coil according to heat transfer Equation (13.11).4 1=Uo ¼ 1=ð1=h1 þ 1=ho þ 1=hd Þ

ð13:11Þ

where Uo ¼ overall heat transfer coefﬁcient, Btu/hr-ft2- F hi ¼ inside ﬁlm heat transfer coefﬁcient, Btu/hr-ft2- F ho ¼ outside ﬁlm heat transfer coefﬁcient, Btu/hr-ft2- F and hd ¼ fouling heat transfer coefﬁcient, Btu/hr-ft2- F ho is determined by Equation (13.12).4 ho ¼ 0:00285ðL2 Nr=mÞ0:7

ð13:12Þ

where L ¼ length of agitator paddle, diameter, feet N ¼ agitator speed, rev/hr r ¼ ﬂuid density, lbm/ft3 m ¼ viscosity of ﬂuid, lbm/ft-hr The properties of the ﬂuid and vessel are: L ¼ 6.125 feet N ¼ 6000 rev/hr r ¼ 74.9 lb/ft3 m ¼ 1.694 lbm/ft-hr and substitution into Equation (13.12), ho ¼ 0:00285 ð6:12522 6; 000 74:9=1:694Þ0:7 ¼ 226 Btu=hr-ft2 - F hi equals 1,500 Btu/hr-ft2- F for steam condensation inside a steam coil.2 hi equals 1,500 Btu/hr-ft2- F for an aqueous system.4 Substitution of hi, ho, and hd into the overall heat transfer Equation (13.11), becomes:

INTRODUCTION

371

1=Uo ¼ 1=ð1=1; 500 þ 1=226 þ 1=1; 500Þ or Uo ¼ 174 Btu/hr-ft2- F, which is the overall heat transfer coefﬁcient for the steam coil in the process liquor preheat vessel. b. Determine the steam condensation temperature inside the steam coil of the process liquor preheat vessel and various coil sizes using the heat transfer equation (Eq. (13.13)). Q ¼ Uo Ao DTlm

ð13:13Þ

where Q ¼ the energy transferred from the waste steam through the coil to the process liquor, Btu/hour, Uo ¼ overall heat transfer coefﬁcient, Btu/hr-ft2- F Ao ¼ outside heat transfer area of coil, ft2 DTlm ¼ logarithmic mean temperature difference, LMTD, F For the steam coil heat transfer, Uo ¼ 174 Btu/hr-ft2- F, Q ¼ 4,526,658 Btu/hour. The logarithmic mean temperature difference is determined from Equation (13.13) but with a modiﬁcation to Equation (13.14) because the process liquor in the preheat vessel will be considered well mixed and isothermal as well as the steam condensate inside the coil. DTlm ¼ DT ¼ ðTs To Þ

ð13:14Þ

where DT ¼ temperature difference between mixed process liquor in vessel, F Ts ¼ saturated temperature of steam condensate in coil, F To ¼ temperature of process liquor in vessel, F. To ¼ 111.2 F and Ts and Ao are unknowns after substitution of the known data into Equations (13.13) and (13.14) Equation (13.15) results. 4; 526; 658 Btu=hr ¼ 174 Btu=hr-ft2 - F Ao ðft2 Þ ðTs 111:2Þ ð FÞ ð13:15Þ In Equation (13.15), Ao and Ts are unknowns. However, if Ao is selected, a corresponding Ts can be computed. An example of a few computations with Equation (13.15) is shown in Table 13.1. 2. From Table 13.1, a selected coil size (heat transfer surface area) will determine the necessary waste steam coil condensation temperature ( F) and the corresponding saturated pressure (psia). For example, a steam coil surface area of 300 ft2 equates to a corresponding steam coil waste steam condensation temperature of 197.7 F and saturation pressure of 11.035 psia. With the concentrator waste heat stack at 1 atmosphere (14.7 psia), the pressure differential between the concentrator waste heat stack and the steam coil in the liquor preheat vessel is 3.665 psi, i.e. (14.7–11.035 ¼ 3.665 psi). Then the 3.665 psi

372

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

TABLE 13.1 Corresponding Coil Surface Area and Steam Coil Condensation Temperature Selected Area (Ao)

Computed Steam Coil Condensation Temperature

Corresponding Steam Saturation Pressure

197.9 F 179.7 F 176.2 F

11.035 psia 7.462 psia 6.901 psia

300 ft2 380 ft2 400 ft2

differential becomes the driving force to move waste heat steam in the concentrator stack to the steam coil in the liquor preheat vessel. For the conditions shown in Table 13.1, the driving force (pressure differential) for moving waste heat to the steam coil is presented in Table 13.2. 3. In summation, a heat recovery system is technically feasible if the following conditions are satisﬁed: . Waste heat concentrator stack has at least 4,526,658 Btu/hour of steam at 212 F and 1 atmosphere (14.7 psia). . Steam coil in process liquor preheat vessel is about 380 ft2 heat transfer area for a waste heat steam condensation temperature of about 179.7 F corresponding to a saturated steam condensation temperature of 7.462 psia. . Differential pressure available to transport steam from the concentrator waste heat stack to the steam coil of the process liquor preheat vessel is about 7.462 psia. 4. The next step is to determine whether a steam coil with about 380 ft2 of heat transfer area can ﬁt into the process liquor preheat vessel. The process liquor preheat vessel has physical limitations due to the space available in the agitated tank for bafﬂes and available liquid submergence due to the height of the vessel. Consequently, it was logical to consider a steam coil of 10ft 2 in. O.D. and about 7 ft 0 in. overall height. For practicality, a 4 in. pipe coil, 4.50 in. O.D., schedule-40 carbon steel pipe with 1.5 coil turns/foot, or 8 in. centerline-to-centerline distance between pipe coils was used. This permitted a 3.5 in. open space between coils to avoid pluggage from a crystalline buildup, since the process liquor can have carryover solids from upstream process units. The effective heat transfer area based upon the outside surface area of the coil TABLE 13.2 Selected Area (Ao) 300 ft2 380 ft2 400 ft2

Corresponding Coil Surface Area and Steam Differential Pressure Computed Steam Condensation Pressure

Corresponding Steam Pressure Differential (Between Waste Heat Stack And Process Liquor Preheat Coil)

11.035 psia 7.462 psia 6.901 psia

3.665 psi 7.238 psi 7.799 psi

Note: Waste Heat Stack at 1 atmosphere (14.7 psia).

INTRODUCTION

373

can be determined by Equation (13.16).5 Aco ¼ 3:14 dco Hc n½ð3:14 Dc Þ2 þ n2 0:5

ð13:16Þ

where Aco ¼ effective heat transfer area of the coil, outside area, ft2 dco ¼ outside diameter of pipe coil, ft n ¼ number of coil turns per foot of coil height, turns/ft, (which equals the inverse of the coil pitch Hc ¼ total height of coil, ft Dc ¼ mean or centerline diameter of internal coil helix, ft On substitution of the following coil parameters into Equation (13.16), n ¼ 1.5 coil turns per foot dco ¼ 0.3750 ft, O.D. pipe coil (4.5/12 ft) Hc ¼ 7.0 ft, total height of coil Dc ¼ 9.7917 ft, centerline diameter of coil helix (10 ft 2 inches 4.5 inches), Aco ¼ 3.14 0.3750 7.0 1.5[(3.14 9.7917)2 þ 1.52]0.5 ¼ 380 ft2 The approximate length of the pipe coil can be determined by Equation (13.17). L ¼ Aco =Ao

ð13:17Þ

Ao ¼ 3:14 dco

ð13:18Þ

where

Ao ¼ heat transfer area of pipe coil per unit length, ft2/ft For the 4-in. schedule 40 pipe, Ao ¼ 3.14 0.375 ¼ 1.1775 ft2/ft from Equation (13.18). Thus, from Equation (13.17), L ¼ 380 ft2/1.1775 ft2/ft ¼ 323 feet, approximate length of pipe coil. A simpliﬁed illustration of a helical pipe coil is shown in Fig. 13.4.Since the steam coil needs 380 ft2 outside heat transfer area and the coil investigated can ﬁt into the process liquor preheat vessel, which is 323 feet of 4—in. schedule 40 carbon steel pipe having outside surface area of 380 ft2, the heat recovery system envisioned in Fig. 13.3 is technically feasible, i. e., a technical success. As a ﬁnal comment, many computations were done before coming to the valuable process feasibility so clearly presented. The project involved a multitude of computations and engineering design before the ﬁnal concept was conceived and progress ﬁnally made. Some idea of the multitude of work done for the ﬁnal system will be apparent in the following economic feasibility analysis for the heat recovery system as presented in Figs. 13.3 and 13.5. As a ﬁnal comment, the amount of process liquor to the preheat vessel could vary considerably due to plant process upsets so that the steam rate to the process liquor preheat coil could vary between about 600 and 6,700 lbs/hour. This variation in the process heat load on the process liquor preheat coil was taken into account in the ﬁnal design of the heat recovery and recycle system.

374

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

P P P C P P b a

P

B

B

FIGURE 13.4 Simple Illustration of Helical Pipe Coil.6

5. Concentrator waste steam from the stack can be used to heat process liquor in the process liquor preheat vessel as illustrated in Fig. 13.3, i.e., technically feasible. Now, the next question is: is the technically sound proposed heat recovery system economical? For this waste heat recovery system, a more detailed engineering study and project design work was completed as illustrated in the simpliﬁed process and instrumentation drawing (P&ID) shown in Fig. 13.5. As an explanation of the system basic concepts, a large pipe carried the waste heat steam from the concentrator stack to the waste heat coil in the process liquor preheat vessel. Flow control valve, FCV-1, on the large steam line, modulated the waste heat steam based upon the temperature of the vessel liquor contents as transmitted by temperature element, TI-1, to temperature indicating controller, TIC-1. Condensate from the waste heat coil was collected in the condensate tank and recycled to the plant as either plant process water and/or boiler makeup water. The boiler steam coil was maintained as a backup option if needed for any unforeseen process downtime and supplied by boiler steam if and only if needed. The boiler steam coil operated using ﬂow control valve, TCV-2, and temperature element, TI-1, with temperature indicating controller, TIC-1. To understand the capital costs for the heat recovery system, a list of major system components is presented below with basic information: . Waste heat steam coil, 4—in. pipe, carbon steel, schedule 40, 4.5 in. O.D., ASTM A106B seamless approximately 318 feet coil length, 7 ft 0 in. height, 9 ft 7.5 inches centerline diameter and 10 ft 0 in. O.D. coil, 8 in. pitch

INTRODUCTION

Agitated Concentrator Vessel

Atmospheric Steam (Waste Heat) at 14.7 psia (1 atm)

2

Agitator Motor & Drive

375

3

1

Boiler Steam Supply

Stack 9,000 lbs/hr steam at 212 oF and 1 atm. FCV 1

Concentrator Feed Steam Coil

Steam Condensate Return

Agitator Concentrator Discharge

FCV 2

TIC 1

Boiler Steam Supply

5

Agitator Motor & Drive

6

Process Liquor Preheat Vessel Boiler Steam Coil Waste Heat Steam Coil

Steam Condensate Return

.

. . .

EJ 1

Noncondensibles Ejector Boiler Steam

LT 1

Condensate Tank

7

FIGURE 13.5

Process Liquor Feed 636 GPM at 96.8 oF

TE 1

4 Agitator

Process Liquor Feed 90 GPM at 129.2 oF

Condensate Pump

LIC 1

FCV 3

Boiler Feed Water Return Plant Process Water

Heated Process Discharge Liquor, 111.2 oF, Returned to Process

Simpliﬁed P&ID, Waste Heat Recovery System.

Boiler steam coil, 4—in. pipe, carbon steel, schedule 40, ASTM A106B seamless approximately 108 feet coil length, 3 ft 0 in. approximate height, 7 ft 7.5 inches centerline diameter, 8 ft 0 in. O.D. coil, 8 in. pitch Pipe supports for coils Waste heat steam coil split in two coil sections to accommodate condensate drainage Check valves on condensate lines

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

376 .

Ejector, EJ-1, for noncondensible removal for start-up and as needed when necessary, 2 in. diameter suction, 6 lb/hr air at 1.56 psia and 117 F, requires 145 lbs/hour motive steam at 120 psig and discharges at 14.7 psia . Flow control valve, FCV-2, 2-in. control valve for steam service, steam valve coefﬁcient 3.02 at 10% open and 99.0 at 100% open . Flow control valve, FCV-1, concentrator waste heat steam from stack, 6 inch control valve for saturated steam service, steam valve coefﬁcient 1.51 at 10% open and 855 at 60% open . Level control valve, FCV-3, for level control in condensate tank, 1—inch control valve, 3/4-in. port diameter, 5% open Cv or 0.276, 100% open Cv of 8.84 . Steam shutoff valves . Gages . Level indicating controller, LIC-1 . Level transmitters, . Condensate pump, 30 GPM at 120 T.D.H., 5 hp 1750 RPM, for hot condensate at 252 F max. . Pressure reducing valve for steam line on ejector steam supply . Line strainers . Steam traps on boiler steam lines . Temperature indicating controller, TIC-1, with alarms . Temperature element, TE-1 . Metal ﬂexible corrugated hose expansion joints for steam lines . Steel condensate tank, ASME ﬂanged and dished heads, 30 in. O.D. 3/8 in. thickness, 2ft 10 inches tangent to tangent . Ball valves . Steel pipe and ﬁttings, which included 126 feet of 6—in. schedule 40 carbon steel pipe, and . Installation costs. Total capital cost for year 1994 was about $90,000.00 including installation and start-up costs. The basic economic analysis can now be conducted using the following economic speciﬁcations: . . . . .

Capital cost: $90,000.00 at 6.00% interest for 11 years Waste heat steam saved at 4,527 lbs/hour valued at $5.30/1,000 lbs steam Operation of plant at 7,446 hours/year O&M for this project well suited for being absorbed into existing plant budget, and Savings for using the waste heat condensate of 4,527 lbs/hr (9.05 GPM) as process water and/or boiler makeup water were not considered even though for this plant the savings would be appreciable.

INTRODUCTION

377

Cost of capital, $90; 000:00 at 6:00% for 11 years; two payments annually : -$11; 294; 53=year Energy savings, 4; 527 lbs=hr $5:30=1; 000 lbs 7; 446 hours=year : $179; 132:48=year Net annual savings (before taxes): $167,837.95/year Obviously, this energy conservation project is economically viable. In addition, with the project being operational in the year 1994, within a short time after start-up, the boiler operator called over to the plant and asked what had happened. The boiler operator said that the export steam meter on the boilers had dropped by about 5000 lbs/hour export steam rate. Conclusion: the waste heat energy recovery and recycle system was technically feasible and economical. Note, since the project was operational in year -1994, the 15 years time span to year 2009 has accumulated a total energy savings of nearly $2,517,569. Energy recovery and recycle can be very lucrative for a business. 6. Operation of the Concentrator Waste Heat/Steam Recovery System This project covers many fundamental and key aspects of engineering in order to be successful as discussed previously. These basic engineering principles will be discussed with regard to how the waste heat recovery system is started up and operates. An engineer needs to be aware of these fundamentals involving plant processes, since such understanding insures a proper design, construction, and start-up for success, both professionally and economically for the stockholders of a corporation. With this in mind, the following discussion of the waste heat recovery system operation is presented for clarity so that fundamentals of science can be learned by the process and project design engineers to be successful. With reference to Fig. 13.5, the following sequence for operation of the waste heat recovery system is presented. a. Boiler steam is supplied to ejector, EJ-1, to remove noncondensables from the condensate tank. b. Flow control valve, FCV-1, is cracked open to allow atmospheric heat atmospheric steam from the concentrator stack to displace any noncondensables in the 6-in. diameter steam line from the concentrator stack to the process liquor preheat waste heat steam coil. These noncondensables will pass through the steam coil into the condensate tank and ﬁnally exit the system to the atmosphere via the ejector, EJ-1. c. Condensate will build up a level in the condensate tank at which the condensate can be turned on with recirculation to the condensate tank. As more condensate builds up in the condensate tank, the condensate will be sent back to the plant as process water and/or as boiler feed water. d. Waste heat steam from the concentrator stack will soon be sufﬁcient to heat the recirculating process liquor stream 5 and stream 6 to 111.2 F. From process evaluations conducted for the design of the heat recovery system,

378

WASTE ENERGY TO RECYCLED ENERGY

the heat load of the waste heat steam coil for heating process liquor stream 5 and stream 6 can vary from 600 to 6700 lbs/hour of steam. Consequently, the ﬂow control valve, FCV-1, was speciﬁed to have a steam valve coefﬁcient for stable operation over this range of steam ﬂow rates. In addition, note, the waste heat steam available in the concentrator stack is 9,000 lbs/hour, which is above the maximum steam required to operate the process liquor preheat waste heat steam coil. Thus, noncondensables are not sucked into the 6—in.diameter steam line via the atmospheric exit of the concentrator stack. This is important because noncondensables can rapidly reduce heat transfer in the coils and make the system nearly inoperable. e. The ejector, EJ-1, is isolated with shutoff valve to the condensate tank and boiler steam shutoff to the ejector. This ejector can be used if necessary to remove noncondensables building up in the waste heat steam coils as indicated by a loss in heat transfer by a problem of maintaining the heated process discharge liquor to 111.2 F. f. When necessary if unknown process ﬂuctuations or some unknown problem does not permit the temperature control of the heated process discharge liquor to the desired process temperature of 111.2 F, boiler steam can be supplied via ﬂow control valve, FCV-2, to the boiler steam coil in the process liquor preheat vessel. This backup heating feature adds to the plant ﬂexibility and efﬁciency when unforeseen process conditions arise. This case study of recovering atmospheric waste heat steam from the concentrator stack is an example of what a chemist and an engineer can accomplish with a team effort based upon scientiﬁc principles. Prior to this heat recovery project, much energy was lost to the atmosphere via the concentrator stack. By understanding the basic fundamentals of engineering and applying them to the real world of plant operations, much efﬁciency and proﬁts to the bottom line can be achieved for a company. Needless to say, much hard work went into this project and much tenacity was used to stay on course by the key team players. As a ﬁnal comment, this heat recovery case study was a real-life project and adventure. After much sweat, hard work, and tenacity in applying the laws of science, success is the likely outcome. REFERENCES 1. Andersen, B.L. and Wenzel, L.A., “Introduction to Chemical Engineering,” McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , New York, 1961. 2. Hougen, O.A., Watson, K.M., and Ragatz, R.A., “Chemical Process Principles, Part I, Material and Energy Balances,” 2nd edition, Wiley. , New York, 1954. 3. Steam Tables, Properties of Saturated and Superheated Steam—From 0.08865 to 15,500 lb per sq in. absolute pressure, Seventh Printing, Values Reprinted from 1967 ASME STEAM TABLES, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1967. 4. Kern, D.Q., “Process Heat Transfer,” McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959. 5. Chemical Engineering, April 4, 1983, p. 69.

INDEX

Acceleration of gravity, 363 Acetate, 178, 179 Acetic acid, 179 Acid gas removal (AGR), 160, 170, 174 Aggregate, 189–192, 195, 196, 200–203 Agitator paddle, 370 Agitator speed, 370 Agricultural waste, 136–137, 140, 145 Air emissions, 125–127 Air separation unit (ASU), 159–160, 172 Alcohol mixture, 27 Aluminum, 138–141, 147 Ammonia, 157, 158 Anaerobic fermentation, 180 Antimony, 147 Arabinan, 151 Area of coil, 371 Aromatics, 152 Arsenic, 161, 189, 191–192 Asbestos, 153, 201–202 Ash, 4–7, 10–11 Auto shredder residue (ASR), 129–133 Automatic reformer (ATR), 160 Avian, 268 Bacteria, 30 Barium, 147 Basic building blocks, 155 BC International Corporation, 185 Benzene, 152 Biocatalyst, 30 Biochemical option, 2, 29–30, 175–186 Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI), 29–30, 180–186, 190, 201 Biomasses, 140, 150

Birds & Fowl, 268 Bituminous coal, 139, 148, 151 Blast furnace slag, 196–200 Boiler feed water (BFW), 160 Boiler steam coil, 374–375 Biochemical process, 29–30, 175, 178–186 Bromine, 147 Byproducts, 155–156, 176, 188–189, 197, 202, 203 Cadmium, 126, 147 Calcium sulfate, 220 Calcium sulﬁde, 220 Caloriﬁc value, 139, 146 Candle ﬁlter, 159, 170–174 Carbon, 4–8, 137, 139, 140, 145–149, 151–152 Carbon char, 4–5 Carbon dioxide, 3, 157, 160 Carbon monoxide, 2 Carbonaceous, 155, 174 Carbonization, 211 Carbonyl sulﬁde (COS), 160, 161 Capital cost/investment, 12, 18, 26–31, 37, 43–45 Cedar Rapids, 49–52 Cellulose, 148–152 Cellulose materials, 148–152, 181 Ceramic candle ﬁlter, 174 Ceramic membrane, 170 Char, 211, 214, 217–220, 230 Chemical composition, 147, 153 Chemical reactions, 156, 164 Chemical sludge, 145 Chlorine, 147–148, 150–151

Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable Comparisons By Gary C. Young Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

379

380

INDEX

Chromium, 147 Clay liner, 63 Clean Water Act for MSWLF’s, 86 Coal gasiﬁcation, 158–160, 191 Coal slurry, 214 Coil size, 371 Coke, 209, 214, 218, 222, 237 Combustion, 1, 5, 7–9 Commercial waste (CW), 2, 135–138, 145 Composted, 137–141 Concentrator stack, 366 Concentrator waste heat, 371–372, 374–377 Concrete, 25–26, 191, 200–203 Condensate pump, 375–376 Condensate tank, 374, 376–378 ConocoPhillips, 159, 170 Conservation of mass, 362, 364 Construction and demolition debris, 135– 137, 141, 145 Consutech gasiﬁer, 180 Conventional gasiﬁcation, 2, 6–11 Copper, 147, 152 Corn to Ethanol Process, 43 Corn stover, 180, 182, 184 Curbside, 49–52 Curbside to Landﬁll, cash ﬂow analysis, 49– 52 Cyclone, 218, 220, 234 Demolition, 135–137, 141, 145 Density, 137, 139, 145, 150 Destec gasiﬁer, 172, 174 Detection monitoring, 88, 93, 95–98, 107 Diameter of internal coil helix, 373 Diameter of pipe coil, 373 Diesel, 158–160, 162–164 Dioxins, 126 Distillation, 161–162, 165–168, 175–185 Double composite liner, 66 Dow/UCC, 177, 178 Dry tomb, 60, 65 Eastman Chemical, 161 Economic comparison/thermal processes, 10–14 Economic parameters, 51, 125 Economy of scale, 35, 37–39 Eco-Valley, 129–133 Ejector, 375–378

Elemental analysis, 137, 139–140, 145–149 Emission limit, 163 Energy balance, 362–369 Energy conversion for heating values, 148 Enthalpy change of aqueous stream 363–364, 367–369 Effective heat transfer area of coil, 370–371 Endothermic reactions, 3, 156 Energy production, 3, 19, 23–24, 27–32, 41, 43–46 Enthalpy, 363–364, 367–369 Enzyme, 180–184 Ethanol, 23–26, 28–31, 175–186 Ethanol, fuel-grade, 152 Exothermic reactions, 5 Fermentation, 30–31, 178–186 Ferrous metals, 145 Film heat transfer coefﬁcient, 370–371 Fire-tube Syngas cooler, 159, 161, 170–174 First law of thermodynamics, 362 Fischer-Tropsch (F-T), 23–28, 158, 160, 175 Flexible membrane liner (FML), 63, 68, 70, 72 Flow control valve, 374 Fluid density, 370 Fluorine, 147 Fly ash, 159, 190, 192–195 Food scraps, 135–137 Force exerted upon the ﬂuid, 363 Fouling heat transfer coefﬁcient, 370 Free energy, 179 Fuel gas (FG), 160–161, 166, 174 Fungicides, 142 Furans, 126 Galactan, 151 Garbage, 49–52, 135 Garbage truck, 49, 52 Garbage to electricity, 16, 35 Gasiﬁcation, 5, 16–21, 23–31, 35–36, 39, 155–159, 160–167, 170–176, 178–204 Gasiﬁcation, high temperature (Thermoselect Process/Interstate Waste Technologies), 230–231 Gasiﬁcation, moderate temperature (Nexterra’s gasiﬁcation system), 234

INDEX

Gasiﬁcation, moderate temperature (Primenergy Gasiﬁcation System), 231–233 Gasiﬁcation reactions, 5, 159 Gasiﬁers/types, 210 Moving-bed gasiﬁer, 210–211, 222 Fluidized-bed gasiﬁer, 210–211, 218–219 Entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer, 210–214, 217–218 Gasiﬁers/reactors, 208 Chevron Texaco entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer, 212–213 ConocoPhillips E-Gas entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer, 211, 213 Shell entrained-ﬂow gasiﬁer, 211–214 Lurgi dry ash gasiﬁer and British gas/Lurgi gasiﬁer, 211, 215–217 Prenﬂo entrained bed gasiﬁer, 212, 217 Noell entrained ﬂow gasiﬁer, 212, 218–219 High temperature Winkler gasiﬁer, 211, 218, 220 KRW ﬂuidized bed gasiﬁer, 211, 219, 221 Alter Nrg Plasma gasiﬁer (Westinghouse Plasma Corporation), 222–223 Gas engine, 237, 240–241 Gas turbine, 162, 170, 171 Gas vent, 64 Gas well, 64 Glass, 137–139, 141, 145, 147, 152 Glass wool, 199–200 Glycol dehydration, 169 Granulated slag, 196–197 Graphite impregnated foam (GIF), 200 Grate ash, 192, 194–195 Green tags, 12 Haulers, 58 Heat capacity, 367–368 Heat energy, 363, 377 Heat of reactions, 146 Heat recovery and steam generation (HRSG), 127, 170–174 Heat transfer area, 371–373 Heating values, 139–140, 142, 144, 148, 149, 150 Height, 363, 372–373 Height of coil, 373 Helical pipe coil, 373–374 Herbicides, 142

381

High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic sheeting/liner, 63, 65, 68 High heating value, 142, 150 High-value products, 155, 162, 188, 192, 195 Hitachi Metals, 129, 133 Hot gas cleanup system, 173 Hot Gas Sulfur Removal Unit, 170–171 Horticultural Rockwool, 198 Hydrochloric acid, 16, 42 Hydroelectric Energy & Economic Case Studies, 280–360 Hydroelectric Mill Dam – Nashua, Iowa, 283 Hydroelectric Mill Dam – Delhi, Iowa, 293 Hydroelectric Mill Dam – Fort Dodge, Iowa, 298 Hydrolysis, 160–161, 181–185 Hydrogen, 2, 155, 160–161, 169, 171–175 Hydrogen chloride, 126–127 Hydrogen cyanide (HCN), 160–161 Hydrogen ﬂuoride, 126 Hydroformylation, 160–161 Hydrogen separator device (HSD), 171 Hydrogen sulﬁde, 160–161 Hydroponic growing, 198 Illinois No. 6 Coal, 159, 161 Incineration, 2 Industrial waste (IW), 2, 135 Industrial nonhazardous waste, 136 Institutional waste, 135–138 Integrated gasiﬁcation combined cycle (IGCC), 23 INERTAM/asbestos treatment, 202 Internal energy, 363 Iogen Company, 182 Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), 60 Iron, 9–16 Joules, 148 Kinetic energy, 363 Landﬁll, 2, 49–122, 135–137, 139–144 Landﬁll cell, 64 Landﬁll cell cost, 64 Landﬁll density, 139 Landﬁll gas, 3, 60, 85–86

382

INDEX

Landﬁll gas composition, 60, 64, 66, 75 Landﬁll operation and maintenance, 52, 82, 84 Landﬁll parameters, 51 Leachate, 60, 63–77 Leachate collection system, 60, 64–65, 68–70, 105 Leachate liquid buildup, 60, 63 Lead, 126, 138–139, 142, 147 Length of agitator paddle, 370 Level control valve, 376 Level indicating controller, 376 Lignin, 182–186 Lignocellulosic material, 181–182, 186 Limestone, 219–220 Liner, 60, 63–77 Liquid fuels, 23–25, 27–31 Logarithmic mean temperature difference, 371 Low Pressure Oxo Process, 187 Lurgi, 165–167, 192, 196 Mannan, 151 Marion, 49–52 Markets –vitriﬁed slag, 202 Mass balance, 362–365 Mass burn, 9 Mass & energy balance, 364 Mass ﬂow rate, 367 Medical waste, 152 Mercury, 160–161, 189, 191–192 Metals, 9, 137–138, 141, 145, 152, 169, 176, 189–194 Methanation, 158, 168–169 Methanator, 157, 168–169 Methane, 156 Methanol, 23–27, 164–169, 175–178 Methanol/Water, 176 Metropolitan areas, 137, 143 Mineral wool, 197, 200 Mining waste, 136 Mixed alcohol synthesis, 177 Moisture, 137, 139–140, 145–152 Molecular sieve dehydration, 171, 176, 180–184 Molybdenum-disulﬁde-based catalyst, 177 Monitoring well, 64, 86–91, 95–108 Municipal sludge, 135–136

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), 2, 10–11, 16–20, 23–31, 35–39, 41–47, 49, 129–152, 155–195 Municipal Solid Waste Landﬁll (MSWLF), 67–122 Municipal Solid Waste Properties, 135 Naphtha, 158–168 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 184 Natural gas, 167–169, 180 Net annual revenue, 11, 27, 31 Net energy, 10–11 New York City waste, 60, 61 Nickel, 147 Nickel catalyst, 167–169 Nitrogen, 157–162 Number of coil turns, 373 Oil and gas waste, 136, 140 Oleﬁns, 152 Operation & maintenance, 12, 99 Organic, 155, 157, 178, 182, 188, 192, 193 Organic matter, 127 Ottawa, Canada, 124–126 Over-all heat transfer coefﬁcient, 371 Oxosynthesis (Hydroformylation), 186–187 Oxo-synthesis gas, 186 Oxygen, 3–5, 7–9, 14 Paper and paperboard, 137–138 Particulate Matter, 126 Performance/thermal efﬁciency, 10–14 Pesticides, 142 Plasco Energy Group, 124–126 Plasma Arc gasiﬁcation, 2, 8–11, 13–14, 16–20, 23, 35–39, 41–46, 129–133 Plasma Arc Gasiﬁcation Technology, 221 Westinghouse Plasma torch, 222, 224 Europlasma Plasma torch, 223–226 Phoenix Solutions Plasma torch, 226 PyroGenesis Plasma torch, 227 Integrated Environmental Technologies (InEnTec), 227–228 Plasma vitriﬁcation, 192–193 Plastics, 137–138, 141–152 Polyethylene, 152 Polypropylene, 152 Polystyrene, 152

INDEX

Postclosure care requirements, 60, 65, 70, 78, 87, 95–97, 103, 105, 106 Potential energy, 363 Poultry litter gasiﬁcation, 232–233 Power option, 2 Pressure reducing valve, 376 Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), 235–236 Properties / MSW, 135 Pyrolysis, 1–3, 5 Pyrolysis/gasiﬁcation, 5 PVC, 152 Quenched, 216–218 Raw Syngas, 159, 161–162, 170–171 RayMas Non-contact Solids Flow Meter, 241–251 Recovery and recycle, 135, 137–139 Recrystallized slag, 195 Rectisol process, 164–166 Refuse, 139–140, 145, 150 Residential customer, 49 Residential waste (RW), 2, 135–138, 145 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 52, 60, 63–65, 67, 102, 135–136, 189–192 Road material/vitriﬁed slag, 175, 189, 196, 200 Rock wool, 189, 197 Rubber, leather & textiles, 137–138, 142, 146, 149, 152 Saturated temperature of steam, 371 Sawdust, 145 Selenium, 147 Selexol sulfur removal, 236 Sewage sludge waste (SSW), 193–195 Silicon, 147 Silver, 147 Simultaneous Saccheriﬁcation and Co-fermentation (SSCF), 184 Single composite liner, 63 Single composite cell, 64 Shift converter, 174 Slag, 5, 7–8, 13 Slag bound mixture (SBM), 197 Slurry, 212–214 Solids ﬂow meter (non-contact / microwave), RayMas , 241–251

383

Solid waste agency, 50 Speciﬁc gravity of liquid, 367 Speciﬁc volume of a ﬂuid, 363 Stainless steel, 152 Steam coil, 365–377 Steam turbine, 237–239 Steel, 152 Stoichiometric ratio (SR), 164–167 Stone wool, 197–199 Sulfur, 16, 42, 163, 170 Sulfur dioxide, 126 Sulfur oxides, Sox, 127 Sulfuric acid plant, 171 Syngas, 2–3, 5–6, 8, 23–31, 35, 129–133, 155–200 Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG), 167–169 Temperature control valve, 375 Temperature difference, 375 Temperature indicating controller, 375 Temperature of aqueous stream, 375 Temperature of process liquor, 375 Texaco, 170 Thallium, 147 Thermal process, 2–4, 6, 10–11, 13 Tin, 147 Tipping fee, 12, 18–20, 49–50, 52, 58–59, 64 Tires, 152 Top soil, 64 Toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP), 13, 25, 176, 189, 190–192, 195–196 Trash-Garbage-Waste, 1 Turbine, 161–162, 170–173, 180 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 58 U.S. Metropolitan areas/MSW, 143 Utashinai, Japan (Eco-Valley plant), 129–133 Vanadium, 147 Vitriﬁed slag, 8, 13, 25–26, 31–32, 155–156, 175–179, 188–204 Velocity, 363 Viscosity of ﬂuid, 370 Volatiles, 137, 145 Volumetric ﬂow rate, 367 Waste energy, 362

384

INDEX

Waste heat recovery, 362–378 Water gas shift reaction, 157–158, 162–177 Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, 129–133 Wind energy & Economic Case Studies, 255 Big Wind Systems, 258 Small Wind Systems, 272 Avian mortality (birds & fowl), 268 Wind turbine, 255–258 Wood, 136–138, 141–152

Work energy, 363 Xylan, 151 Yard trimmings, 136–139 Yard wastes, 137, 139, 141, 145, 149 Zinc, 147 Zinc oxide, 160–161